2019 (6) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting to the tax periods April 2012 to March 2013 as well as the endorsement No.CTO[AUDIT]-5.3/No./2018-19 dated 03.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, interalia, seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to initiate denovo re-assessment proceedings for the impugned period by considering the details and documents furnished by the petitioner and pass a well-reasoned order.   2. The petitioner is a public limited company, registered as a dealer under the provisions of the CST Act and the KVAT Act, engaged in trading of electronic/electrical goods as well as medical diagnostic equipments. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that reassessment proceedings under the KVAT Act and CST Act have been concluded for the periods 2006....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emand from the higher Appellate Forums, which has been suffered by the assessee relating to the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner filed the rectification application under Section 69 of the KVAT Act seeking rectification of the reassessment order before the Assessing Officer to examine each individual transactions before fixing the liability of additional tax by rejecting the claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the said application by the impugned endorsement without assigning any valid reasons. It is argued that non-examination of individual transactions would amount to mistake apparent from the record and as such, the Assessing Officer was bound to allow the rectification application in order to examine the individ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erned of its intention to do so and has allowed the person concerned the opportunity of showing cause in writing against such amendment. xxxx xxxx" 8. As could be seen, it is only an apprehension of the petitioner that the assessment order passed by the KAT relating to the assessment year 2006-07 would be repeated for the assessment year 2012-13. It is trite law that Section 69 of the KVAT Act can be invoked only with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The phrase 'mistake apparent from the record' cannot be enlarged to re-examine/re-analyze/re-visit the concluded issues based on the factual aspects, which were before the authority at the time of passing of the assessment order. The scope of the rect....