TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mon questions arise for our consideration, they are being considered simultaneously. 5. We may state that for the sake of convenience, allied matter, being STA No.1/2016, shall be considered for the purpose of narrating the facts. 6. The brief facts of the case appears to be that the appellant is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, fabrication, installation and selling of UPVC windows/doors as per the specific requirements of the customers. It is the case of the appellant that on 29.05.2010, re-assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer under Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act', for short) for the tax period of 2007-2008. The matter was carried in appeal before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal price. The FAA has allowed the appeal vide VAT AP No.673 to 684/10-11 dated 06.01.2012. As the issue raised in the revision proceedings was not before the FAA, the doctrine of the merger cannot be made applicable, therefore the limitation of four years for revision starts from the date of order passed by the Assessing Authority i.e., 29-05- 2010, which ends on 28-05-2014, since, proceedings initiated is barred by limitation, therefore the same should be dropped." 9. It further appears that the respondent while passing the impugned order has completely reproduced the reply submitted in response to the show cause notice under Section 64(1) of the Act; the relevant of which reads as under at para-4 (16) to (23) as under: 16. Without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-section (4) of Section 64 of the KVAT Act, 2003 provides that, "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner may pass an order under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, on any point which has not been raised and decided in an appeal or revision referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3), before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order in such appeal or revision or before the expiry of a period of four years referred to in clause (c) of that subsection, whichever is later". 19. On conjoint reading of the above provision and Hon'ble High Court decision (supra) it is understood that, the doctrine of merger cannot be made applicable to the issues ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not raised before the Deputy Commissioner and the only point raised before him was regarding the inclusion of the amount of tax collected by the respondent in the taxable turnover, the subject-matter of the revision proceedings before the Board of Revenue was the revised assessment order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated November 28, 1952. (ii) that, in the circumstances of this case, it could not be said that there was a merger of the order of assessment dated November 28, 1952, made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer with the order in revision of the Deputy Commissioner dated August 21, 1954, because the question of exemption of the value of yarn purchased from outside the State of Madras was not the subject-matter of revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by the revisional authority within the prescribed period of three years, the order of the revisional authority which was passed on June 27, 2005 was clearly beyond the period of five years prescribed by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 57. Therefore the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any error. 23. Madras Glass and Plywood Depot Vs Joint Commissioner II, Board of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras [1993] 89 STC 160 (Mad) held that, DOCTRINE OF MERGER - REVISION - JOINT COMMISSIONER - LIMITATION - FIVE YEARS FROM DATE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED - ASSESSMENT APPEALED AGAINST BY DEALER AND APPEAL ALLOWED - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PROPOSING TO TAX TURNOVER NOT SUBJECT OF APPEAL - NO MERGER OF ASSESSMENT WITH ORDER....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of reassessment made by the assessing authority and not the First Appellate Authority. 13. In our view, in any case, it was required for the respondent to examine and deal with the point of limitation which was expressly raised by the appellant. The aforesaid aspects of limitation, in our view, would be one of the vital aspects and it would completely change the basis of the order, in the event the point of limitation is accepted. 14. We do not propose to express any view on the merits on the issue of limitation, since the said aspect has not at all been examined and now may be examined after we pass the order for remand of the order to the respondent. 15. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order passed by the resp....