TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. R.P.No.304 of 2016 is preferred against the judgment dated 23.11.2015 in W.P.(C). No.35373 of 2015. 2. The petitioner in both the aforementioned writ petitions is a dealer in energy drinks under the brand name of "Red Bull". Aggrieved by pre-assessment notices that were served on him proposing the completion of an assessment and the imposition of a penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') for the assessment year 2014-2015, the writ petitioner had approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.35373 of 2015 seeking a direction to the authority for clarification constituted under the KVAT Act, to consider and pass orders on an application for clarification that had been filed by the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. It was the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that the orders passed by the assessing authority were passed to overreach the directions in the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.35373 of 2015, and the authority for clarification had to pass orders on merits in the application preferred by the petitioner for clarification. W.P.(C).No.3579 of 2016 was disposed by this Court after hearing the parties and holding that, since the intention of this Court while passing the judgment in W.P.(C).No.35373 of 2015 was to ensure that an adjudication would follow the order passed by the authority for clarification under the KVAT Act, and the said object had not materialised through the passing of the assessment orders by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P.(C).No.35373 of 2015 was passed was erroneous since the writ petitioner had not disclosed the true facts before this Court on that occasion. It is pointed out that once an order of assessment was passed, the authority for clarification under Section 94 was not empowered to pass orders on an application for clarification, as provided in Section 94 (4) of the KVAT Act. It is stated that, the judgment of this Court that quashes the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority, as also the order of the authority for clarification that holds that he could not consider the application of the writ petitioner on merits on account of the orders already passed by the assessing authority, needed to be reviewed taking into account the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment orders were not communicated to the petitioner till much after the date of judgment in W.P.(C).No.35373 of 2015. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioners has also relied on similar material to show that the assessment orders were communicated to the office of the petitioner before the date on which W.P.(C).No.35373 of 2015 was filed by the writ petitioner. While there is a factual dispute with regard to the date of service of the assessment orders dated 18.11.2015, on the writ petitioner, I find in this case that if it was the case of the review petitioners that the assessment orders dated 18.11.2015 had already been served on the writ petitioner before the date of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.....