2017 (10) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suance of the directions of learned Single Judge given in the order dated 2.9.2010 in W.P.Nos.20781/2010 and 21811-21821/2010, directing him to accept the revised returns filed by petitioner-assessee for the period from July 2005 to March 2006, which were filed under Rule 131 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 with additional tax liability disclosed by the assessee in such revised returns. 2. The submission made by Mrs.Vani.H, learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee is that the Respondent-Authority has accepted some of these monthly VAT revised returns and while rejecting some of them on the ground that such rejected revised returns did not indicate any additional tax liability and proof of payment thereof. 3. She submitted rely....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jections filed by the dealer, he has not cared to apply the binding judgment of Division Bench at all and has proceeded to pass impugned fresh orders, which is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Revenue, Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy supported the impugned order and urged before the Court that additional tax liability as such was not disclosed in the revised returns and payment thereof was not made and therefore the Assessing Authority was justified in passing the impugned order. However, he submitted that Division Bench's judgment of this Court does not appear to have been discussed in detail by the Assessing Authority. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said Division Bench's judgment, it appears that he has not fully understood the ratio of the same or has not carefully examined the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. The matter, therefore deserves to be remanded to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh orders for each month separately, accepting all the revised returns for the period July 2005 to March 2006 and after considering the case of assessee on merits, discussing the facts of the case each month, detailed objections of the assessee for each month separately in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court. 9. This Court also takes exception to the pedantic approach of the Assessing Authority in not fully discussing t....