TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heat sinks. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the tax period for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 in which the tax paid by the assessee appellant was at the rate of 4% on the sales of parts of UPS. On the basis of the return filed by the appellant for the aforesaid period, the assessment was deemed to have been accepted, however, the matter was reopened for reassessment under S.39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act for short) and by order dated 5.4.2010, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore did not find any discrepancy in respect of input tax or output tax and a finding was recorded that the tax paid by the appellant at 4% on the sales of parts of UPS was in order. Then on 28.11.2013, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e KVAT Act for the Revisional Authority was to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It is thus contended that to the extent of passing a fresh assessment order, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority was wholly without jurisdiction and as such, the availability of alternate remedy would not be a ground on which the writ petition should have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the facts as have been considered by the Revisional Authority to the extent of cancellation or setting aside of the assessment orders. It is only the later part by which the appellant is aggrieved. In view of the aforesaid, the only question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a fresh assessment. But, by amendment which came into effect from 1.4.2013, the word 'or' was substituted by the word 'and' and the Section reads as 'cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment'. It is thus contended that even before the amendment and more so after the amendment of 2013, the Revisional Authority could not have proceeded to pass the order of reassessment once the assessment order had been set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Shankar Construction Co Vs Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - (2001) 124 STC 265 wherein while considering the provisions of S.22 A of the Karnataka S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the provisions of S.63 A of the KVAT Act, once the order of cancellation of the assessment order had been passed by the Revisional Authority, it could not proceed to pass a fresh assessment order but could only direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. S.22 A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shankar Constructions Company (supra), is identical to the provisions of S.63 A of the KVAT Act as it existed prior to the amendment of 2013 and the word used in the last sentence was 'or' and not 'and', which has been substituted in the KVAT Act, by amendment of 2013. The same would be significant as it would make it further clear that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant's learned counsel Sri S Narayana that it is wholly impermissible for the revisional authority to step into the shoes of the assessing officer and to redo the assessment or pass a fresh assessment order. In the first instance, it is necessary to highlight the fact that the statutory powers are necessarily circumscribed by the wording of S.22A and this section unequivocally indicates that if reassessment is necessary that the revisional authority can only direct reassessment. We do not need to re-emphasise the fact that the Legislature obviously and in our opinion very correctly intended that everything short of a reassessment is permissible in the circumstances indicated by us but where a reassessment is necessary and the case will ....