2011 (1) TMI 1280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee is a partnership firm and was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act during the year 2004-05. The assessee is in the business of construction and sale of residential houses. The assessee bona fide believed that since they were putting up construction on the land owned by them and they were selling the house with the undivided shares, the provisions of the Act are not attracted. However, in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka [2005] 141 STC 298 (SC), wherein it was held, the constructions put up on own land by execution of works contract fall within the purview of the Act, appellant was obliged to file the return and pay the tax. On such return be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was revised under section 21, the assessment order merged with that revisional order, therefore, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had no jurisdiction to again revise the assessment order as it was not in existence at all. Therefore, he submits, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Secondly, it was contended, if the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is exercising his power under section 22, setting aside the order of revisional authority as well as the assessment order, he should have set aside the entire order and should have remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for denovo enquiry and for fresh assessment, he could not have made a restricted remand and decided the other issues. Therefor....