9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uity, we refer to the parties as the 'dealer' and the 'State'. The subject matter relates to the returns filed for 2000- 01 and 2001-02. To appreciate the error of law pointed out by the dealer, the following events are considered chronologically in R.P. No. No. 14/2023 in S.T. Revision No. 33/2019. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Adoor, by Annexure A order dated 30.03.2007, determined the turnover and the tax payable by the dealer. The State Legislature enacted the Kerala Finance Act 2008 (Act 21 of 2008). Section 23B was introduced after Section 23AA to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963. Section 23B sub-section (7) reads thus: "(7) If the amount settled under this provision has been a subject matter of appeal or revision, such appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s do not provide for continuing the subject matter settled through Amnesty Orders. He commends the Court to interpret Section 23B(7) to preserve or protect the right to continue the proceedings already initiated by the dealer. There is no bar in the scheme accepted by the Finance Act 21 of 2008. He relies on Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) v. Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd Judgment dated 05.03.2010 in W.A. No. 298/2010 and Assistant Commissioner (KVAT) v. ACC Limited Judgment dated 03.07.2014 in W.A. Nos.1807 & 1828/2013 and WP(C) No.4808/2010 to contend that ex-post facto continuation of orders of the Assessing Officer is available. Therefore, the non-consideration of Section 23B(7) is an error apparent on the face of the record and prays ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of continuance does not arise. He distinguishes the judgments relied on by the dealer and argues that the ratio is not applicable and further Section 23B(7) has to be interpreted by this Court. He prays for dismissing the review petitions. 6. We take note of the contentions made at the Bar. The jurisdiction of the Court reviewing its order is well settled by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Firstly, we note that the review comprehends the jurisdiction of Section 41(7)(b) of the KGST Act as a moot question and a detailed examination would give an answer against the dealer. We could have recorded a finding on those lines; since an argument in Section 23B(7) is stated with considerable force, we will examine the same as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
