TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s main contention that he had changed his address is factually incorrect. Therefore, the contention urged by assessee that the orders were sent to his old address is untenable. The learned KAT has analyzed the facts in extenso and rightly recorded a finding that there was no proper explanation for the delay. Assessee has reiterated the same grounds seeking condonation of delay. There are no merit in this revision petition and impugned order passed by the KAT does not call for any interference - Revision Petition is dismissed. - S.T.R.P. No.1 OF 2023 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2023 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR For the Petitioner (By Shri. M.N. Shankare Gowda, Advocate) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment periods 2010-11 2012-13 AT respectively on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal in spite of Hon'ble Supreme court order of 10.1.2022 with regard to limitation during / covid-2019 period? 2. Heard Shri. M.N. Shankare Gowda, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned AGA for the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, Assessee is a partnership firm registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [KVAT] with effect from April 11, 2011. It is engaged in the business of construction and sale of flats. The ACCT [Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes] cum AO [Assessing Officer] passed the assessment order fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause for filing appeals belatedly. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Shri. Shankare Gowda, learned Advocate for the Assessee submitted that: Orders passed by the JCCT, for A.Y.s 2010-11 and 2012-2013 as per communication certificate dated March 8, 2022 were sent to assessee on May 19, 2019 and June 13, 2019 respectively. However, assessee learnt about the order for A.Y.s 2010-11 and 2012-13 on June 09, 2020 and March 15, 2021 respectively; appeal orders have not been served on the assessee or his manager or his agent as required under Rule 176 of KVAT Rules; the orders have not been sent to assessee s correct address; the appeals could not be filed in time due to COVID -19 pandemic; the Tribunal has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2019 is stated to have been served on the Petitioner on 19.05.2019 as per the communication certificate dated 08.03.2022 Issued by the First Appellate Authority. The acknowledgment has been enclosed with this Petition under Annexure-F in Page No. of the Petition. The appeal order has been served upon a unknown person at Door No.109/3C, Tunganagara, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru. According to the acknowledgment dated 19.05.2019 it can be seen that the appeal order was not served on the assessee or his manager or his agent as per Rule 176 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules (for short KVAT Rules ). 19. It is submitted that the Petitioner has shifted to Flat No.302, Sri Nilayam Apartment, Tunganagara, on 03.12.2012 Itself which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the contention urged by assessee that the orders were sent to his old address is untenable. 14. The learned KAT has analyzed the facts in extenso and rightly recorded a finding that there was no proper explanation for the delay. Assessee has reiterated the same grounds seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we do not find any merit in this revision petition and impugned order passed by the KAT does not call for any interference. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Revision Petition is dismissed. ii) STA No. 58/2021 and STA No. 59/2021 dated 09.09.2022 passed by the KAT, Bengaluru is confirmed. iii) The questions of law are answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. No cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
