TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, on the basis of the information gathered and by visiting the appellant's premises, passed a protective Assessment Order on 15.03.2007 under Section 38(5) of the KVAT Act for the period. By the said order, the input tax claimed by the appellant was withdrawn on the premises that the two suppliers, namely M/s. SVS Enterprises and M/s. SR Commercials, Challakere colluded with the appellant, even though there was no movement of goods from the supplier to the appellant. 3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Intelligence Wing of the Department, appellant filed a first appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) in KVAT AP No.233/2006-07/B-121, which was allowed on 19.04.2007. The appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Intelligence Authority. 4. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising his revisional powers issued notice dated 13.11.2009 under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act proposing to revise the aforesaid appellate order passed in the appellant's case. In response thereto, appellant filed his objections on 25.11.2009. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 04.12.2009 passed a revisional order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evisional order dated 31.12.2013 passed under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, wherein the revisional proceedings were dropped on the ground that there was delay in initiating the revisional proceedings with respect to the assessment order dated 17.10.2007 ? " 10. We have heard learned counsel Sri.M.N.Shankaragowda for the appellant and Smt.Veena Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent and perused the material on record. 11. The detailed narration of facts above would not require reiteration. What emerges from the facts and contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties is that by judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in STA No.501 of 2010, the matter was remanded to the revisional authority to reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the effect of the matter of Regular Assessment passed under Section 38(1)(a) of KVAT Act on 17.10.2007 (Annexure 'G'). 12. On remand, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated 31.12.2013, has held that the proceedings taken up in respect of final Assessment Order being quashed under Section 38(1)(a) of KVAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he KVAT Act operate in different fields. Section 38(1)(a) of the KVAT Act deals with deemed accepted assessment based on monthly returns filed whereas the protective assessment is undertaken to assess a dealer in special circumstances independent of other Sections relating to the assessment or reassessment. A protective order is not a provisional Assessment Order. It is in a way a final order insofar as the subject to which it relates. Further, what was assailed before this Court was the protective Assessment Order and the matter was remanded by this Court in respect of tax period from 01.04.2006 to 30.11.2006 only, which was the period in respect of which the protective Assessment Order was passed. This Court did not say in so many words that the protective order had merged with the regular Assessment Order dated 17.10.2007. This Court only directed consideration of the protective Assessment Order. Hence, the question of limitation for revising the Assessment Order dated 17.10.2007 under Section 38(1)(a) of the KVAT Act did not arise on the basis of doctrine of merger. As already noted, the protective Assessment Order and the reassessment order were passed in different fields in d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he authority concerned of the jurisdiction to exercise the power of revision as per section 16 of the Act. This proposition squarely comes into play and militates against the impugned notice. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot extend the period of l imitation. The respondent cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to exercise the power of revision under section 16 of the Act beyond time, merely because the Appel late Assistant Commissioner chose to direct him to issue a fresh notice. 19. In the case of Jaipur Udyog Limited, it was held that the service of a valid notice within the period of l imitation is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction for assessment under Section 12 of the Act considered therein, namely Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. If the assessing authority failed to issue a notice which was valid in the eye of law, the said authority could not acquire jurisdiction to re-assess a dealer under the provisions of Section 12 of Act therein. That the findings of the Board of Revenue therein to the effect that notice issued to the assessee under Section 12 of the said Act was invalid, was binding on the assessing authority and he could not given ....