TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 2004-05 were completed vide orders dated 18.7.2006. Exts.P1 to P5 are those orders. It would appear that with a view to get certain defects rectified, the petitioner preferred rectification applications against the said orders and the same were subsequently rectified by Exts.P6 to P10 orders. Thereafter, aggrieved by the assessment orders to the extent that there were certain additions made to the total turnover, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who considered the matters and after placing reliance on a remand report that was called from the Assessing Authority, by a common order dated 20.6.2007, produced as Ext.P11, modified the assessments for the years 2000-01 to 2004- 05. Subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the 2nd respondent as well as Ext.P28 notice issued by the Assessing Authority. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein at paragraphs 3 and 4, it is stated as follows: "3. It is submitted that, the petitioner is a Distillery registered on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The assessment of the petitioner for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 were originally completed as ex parte. In the said assessment order assessing authority included excise duty to the turnover and levied tax. Aggrieved by the assessment orders the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam. In the report submitted to the said appellate authority 1st respondent failed to include the elem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the writ petition must succeed. Exts.P17 to P21 notices, as also Exts.P23 to P27 orders, of the 2nd respondent are issued pursuant to the powers available to the 2nd respondent under Section 35 of the KGST Act. In terms of the said Section, the Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for or examine any order passed or proceedings recorded under this Act by any officer or authority subordinate to him other than an Appellate Assistant Commissioner] which in his opinion is prejudicial to revenue. By clause (2A) of the said Section, the Deputy Commissioner can also pass an order under Sub-section (1) on any p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore merged in the orders of the Appellate Authority. The revenue authorities, who were aggrieved by the mistake or discrepancy in the appellate order, did not choose to carry the said appellate order in appeal or revision before the higher authorities. The appellate order therefore attained finality. In such an event, when consequential orders are passed by the Assessing Authority, pursuant to the directions in the appellate order, I do not think that the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the KGST Act can be invoked to modify or vary the consequential orders passed by the Assessing Authority pursuant to the appellate order of the Appellate Authority. To permit the 2nd respondent to do so would tantamount to ignoring....