Sales Tax Appeal No. 2591 of 2010 and Cross Appeal No. 2843 of 2012. Case: Smt. Sudha Vasant Bire Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Case NumberSales Tax Appeal No. 2591 of 2010 and Cross Appeal No. 2843 of 2012
CounselFor the Appellant: Sri P.S. Yadawad, Advocate for Appellant and For the Respondent: Sri B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative for Respondent
JudgesBasavaraj S. Sappannavar, DJM and P. Puttaraju, CTM
IssueKarnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 2(24), 39, 63; Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 37
Citation2013 (77) KarLJ 327
Judgement DateAugust 21, 2013
CourtKarnataka Appellate Tribunal

Judgment:

P. Puttaraju, CTM

  1. This is an appeal filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'Act') challenging the appeal order dated 8th September, 2010 in Case No. JCCT/AP/BG/KVAT-04/2010-11 for the tax periods from 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum Division, Belgaum (for brevity, as 'FAA') who has set aside the reassessment order dated 27th March, 2010 concluded by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Bijapur (for short, as 'AA') on the ground that the AA is not a Prescribed Authority. While allowing the appeal, the FAA has given liberty to AA to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. This observation has been challenged in this appeal and prayer is made to expunge the said observation.

  2. There is delay in filing this appeal by 37 days for which application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1963 and affidavit are furnished. The same is considered and the delay is condoned after accepting the explanation submitted. Thus the I.A. No. I is disposed of and the appeal is admitted.

  3. The relevant facts and grounds leading to this appeal can be briefly stated as follows:

    (i) The appellant is an individual concern and Smt. Sudha W/o Vasant Bire aged 34 years is the Proprietor.

    (ii) The appellant is engaged in trading agricultural pump sets, PVC pipes and electrical goods having registration under the Act.

    (iii) The appellant has been subjected to visit audit followed by the reassessment under Section 39(1) of the Act.

    (iv) The AA has concluded reassessment order under Section 39(1) of the Act on 27th March, 2010 by computing gross turnover at Rs. 1,57,26,477/- and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,51,16,036/-. While doing so, the AA has considered the financial year 2008-2009 as the unit of assessment. In the reassessment proceedings, the AA has restricted input tax rebate.

    (v) Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the appellant has carried the matter before the FAA who has allowed the appeal on the ground that the AA is not a Prescribed Authority under the Act and hence the orders have been set aside. While passing the impugned appeal order, the FAA has observed that the appeal order in no way prohibits the AA to pass fresh orders as per law provided the Prescribed Authority is in possession of information to prove that the return filed under states the correct tax liability. The learned Counsel for the appellant has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT