2016 (12) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ari, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Chander Kumar. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sreenidhi, AGA ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in hand is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Anantha Padmanabha Bhat  Vs.  Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others in Writ Petition Nos.54356-357/2015(T-RES), decided on 03/06/2016 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee in the regular day-to-day business for which he is registered by the Department. These Rules do not intend to cover the goods purchased for construction or being material to be fixed in the building premises of the assessee like the Vitrified Tiles in the present case. In the present case, the Tiles purchased from the State of Gujarat on payment of Central Sales Tax and fixed in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T Rules, 2005 does not arise in the present case. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent assessing authority has misused his power under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act for reassessment of the assessee in the present case on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order, such impugned ord....