TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 912
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST Act. The original assessments under the provisions of the CST Act came to be completed by the assessing authority on March 3, 1994, granting exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of the CST Act, on the ground that the sales effected by the petitioner would come within the purview of section 5(3) of the CST Act. Subsequently, the assessing authority, being of the opinion that the whole of the turnover of the dealer has escaped assessment to tax in the orders of assessment passed earlier, had initiated reassessment proceedings under section 19(1) of the KGST Act read with section 9(2) of the CST Act. The assessing authority, after hearing the petitioner, has passed an order dated May 31, 1996 bringing to tax the turnover whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 35(1) of the KGST Act 1963. Your objection, if any, against the proposal should be filed within seven days of receipt of this notice, failing which the case will be disposed of on its merits. You are also given an opportunity of personal hearing on October 16, 1997 at 11. A.M. in my office at Kattappana, with all evidences you rely on." (Emphasis Here italicised supplied by us) After receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had filed its reply letter dated November 27, 1997. Apart from others, the assessee had specifically contended as under: "1. Event hough section 35 of the KGST Act, vests you with powers to revise an order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, such revision can be made only in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns contained in the notice under section 35 have been duly considered by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in his fresh order passed on May 31, 1996 in substitution of the original order dated March 3, 1994. But the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam in his order STA No. 424 of 1996 dated February 23, 1998 has quashed the order dated May 31, 1996 passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Kumily in substitution of the original order dated March 3, 1994, being time-barred. Hence the contention of the assessee is not worth considering. All other contentions of the assessee merit no consideration. In the circumstances, the following orders are passed: Order No. A4-5125/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e original order of assessment dated March 3, 1994 was not alive and, therefore, the revisional authority cannot revise an order which is not in existence. Per contra, Sri Muhammed Rafiq, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, would submit that merely because the reassessment proceedings had been initiated by the assessing authority, it cannot be said that the original order of assessment was merged with the reassessment order. In support of that contention, the learned counsel intends to rely upon the observations made by the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1; [2007 162 Taxman 465. The one and only issue that would arise for our consideration and decision is, wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order in such appeal or revision or before the expiry of the period of four years referred to in clause (c) of the sub-section, whichever is later. (3) No order under this section adversely affecting a person shall be passed unless that person has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard." A perusal of the aforesaid provision would clearly demonstrate, that, the revisional authority can exercise its suo motu powers to revise an order, if the said order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, after issuing a notice and after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary. In the instant case, as we have already noticed, an original order of assessment came to be passed by the assessing authority on March 3, 1994. In the said ....