TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Second Appellate Authority exceeded jurisdiction by going beyond scope of Section 69 rectification application</h1> <h3>The State of Karnataka Versus M/s. Beje Agro Industries</h3> The State of Karnataka Versus M/s. Beje Agro Industries - TMI Issues Involved:1. Application for rectification of mistake under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 after deletion of sub-section (2A) by Act No. 17 of 2012.2. Remand of the entire case by the Tribunal under Section 63 despite the assessee not filing a regular appeal under Section 62 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Application for Rectification of Mistake under Section 69:The primary issue was whether the respondent-assessee could file an application for rectification of mistake under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 after the deletion of sub-section (2A) by Act No. 17 of 2012 with effect from 01.04.2012. The court clarified that the omission of Section 69 (2A) does not remove the power of rectification available under Section 69 (1). Section 69 (2A) only provided for deemed rectification if the application was not rejected within 60 days, and its deletion does not affect the exercise of rectification power under Section 69 (1). Thus, the assessee could still file an application under Section 69 (1) after the deletion of Section 69 (2A).2. Remand of the Case by the Tribunal:The second issue was whether the Tribunal could remand the entire case back to the Assessing Authority even though the assessee had not filed a regular appeal under Section 62 but only an application for rectification under Section 69. The court noted that the scope of rectification proceedings is narrow and limited to correcting apparent errors on record. The First Appellate Authority had already determined that there was no apparent mistake on record, and thus, the Second Appellate Authority should have confined itself to reviewing the correctness of the rectification application rejection. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case was beyond its power, as it effectively reopened the reassessment order, which had attained finality. The court concluded that the Second Appellate Authority had wrongly decided to remand the case, as it went beyond the grounds raised in the rectification application.Findings on Specific Contentions:- The discrepancies noted by the Tribunal regarding the suppressed turnover were not raised in the rectification application and thus should not have been considered.- The court emphasized that the rectification application filed by the assessee was beyond the permissible time limit, and the reassessment order had already attained finality.- The court rejected the contention that the material seized belonged to another entity, M/s. Sony Agro Industries, noting that there is a presumption under Section 52 (5) that documents found on the business premises belong to the said business entity unless proven otherwise.Conclusion:The revision petitions were allowed, and the order of the Second Appellate Authority under Section 63 was set aside. The court affirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority, emphasizing that the scope of rectification is limited and does not extend to reopening final reassessment orders. The court also clarified that new questions of law cannot be framed in revision proceedings under Section 65, and the period of limitation prescribed under the statute cannot be extended by the courts.
TaxTMI 