TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort) by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). 2. Facts leading to filing of this revision briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company, which is engaged in the activity of manufacture of soaps and other toiletries and is also engaged in trading activity in other goods such as electrical equipments. On commencement of the Act, the petitioner got itself registered as dealer and filed its monthly return in Form VAT-100 from tax period April 2005 under Section 35(1) of the Act and discharged applicable taxes. The petitioner filed audited accounts in the light of Section 31(4) read with Rule 34 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and Form VAT-240 as it stood the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted a reply on 07.10.2009, in which inter alia it was stated that re assessment was to be done for the entire period 2005 06 and the officer could not pick and choose separately only two months where short payments were made and ignore two months where excess payments were made. The assessing authority however, rejected the objections of the petitioner and passed an order of re assessment on 21.10.2009 confirming the demand of tax, additional tax, interest and penalty in respect of tax periods where there was short payment of tax. Similarly, for the tax period 2007-08, the assessing authority initiated re-assessment proceedings and passed an order of re-assessment on 19.03.2010 under Section 39(1) of the Act. 4. The petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Section 39(1) of the Act as it stood prior to 01.04.2007, provided for re-assessment of all the returns that were incorrect. It is further submitted that the authorities have grossly erred in ignoring the provision as it stood during the disputed period and instead considering the amended Section 39(1) of the Act which came into force with effect from 01.04.2007. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner had paid the tax in excess. It is also contended that even after expiry of the time period to file the revised return, the statue provides for the mechanism to pay additional tax by filing revised annual statement in Form VAT-115 within a period of nine months and therefore, payment of additional tax liability or refund of exce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deemed to be assessed to tax based on return filed by him under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, deemed assessment applies for each tax period. It is also pointed out that contention of the petitioner that Assessing Authority was required to re-assess all tax periods in respect of which incorrect returns was filed is based on erroneous interpretation of Section 39 of the Act as clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 39 clearly requires the authority to re-assess the additional tax payable. Therefore, the authority was not under an obligation to re-assess all tax periods but only those periods which would result in payment of additional tax by the dealer. It is also argued that if amounts indicated in the statement of accounts audit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid provisions it is evident that even prior to amendment with effect from 01.04.2007, the Assessing Authority under Section 39(1) of the Act could re-assess the tax, if it has grounds to believe that any return furnished is deemed as assessed is incorrect or that any assessment issued under Section 38 understate the correct tax liability and could reassess the additional tax payable. Section 2(33) of the Act read with Rule 37(2) with the Rules defines tax period to mean a calendar month. Section 35 of the Act requires dealers to file returns for each tax period and as per Section 38 of the Act every dealer is deemed to be assessed to tax based on the return filed by him under Section 35 of the Act. 10. N....