TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bengaluru ('Tribunal' for short) passed in STA Nos.188/2012, 189/2012, 190/2012 and 191/2012 dated 25.10.2017 relating to the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. 2. These petitions have been admitted by this Court to consider the following questions of law:- IN STRP Nos.151/2018, 152/2018 & 154/2018 "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that, there is a proper service of notice/order as per 53 of the KST Rules?" IN STRP No.153/2018 "1. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that, there is a proper service of notice/order as per 53 of the K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short) and also Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short). The petitioner used to purchase the IML and Beer from the distilleries/MSIL. For the assessment years in question, the assessments were concluded determining the total and taxable turnover. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee preferred statutory appeals before the First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the common order of the Appellate Authority, the assessee has preferred STA Nos.1606/2002, 1607/2002, 1609/2002 and 1610/2002. The Tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to pass the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue revised demand notice. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred these revision petitions raising the questions of law as aforesaid. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee are of three fold. Firstly, service of assessment orders was made on Smt. Mamatha, D/o. Sri. D. Nemirajaiah, who is not the adult member of his (assessee's) family. Secondly, the dispute raised regarding the partners i.e., the retirement of the partners Sri. K.M. Nagaraj and N. Manjunath, though noticed by the Assessing Authority, placing reliance on the partnership deed dated 01.04.1992, accepting the same as the document of partnership for proceeding with the assessment, subsequent to the death of Sri. D. Nemirajaiah on 18.08.2008, pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge Act, 1955 on 15.03.2013. As such she ceased to be the adult member of the family of D. Nemirajaiah, service of notice of the assessment orders dated 27.05.2010 on Smt. N. Mamatha is not in conformity with the Rules. 7. This argument is wholly misconceived firstly, 'family' is not defined under the KST Act and KST Rules. Ordinarily the married daughter does not cease to be the adult member of the family of her father because of her status as married. In the wake of the amendment brought to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with effect from 09.09.2005 irrespective of the date of marriage, married daughter continues to be family member. What is relevant is the service of the assessment order dated 27.05.2010. Even as per clause (c) of Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tution of the partnership, wherein, the said partnership deed has been executed between Sri. D. Nemirajaiah as the first party and Sri. N. Ajith S/o. Sri. D. Nemirajaiah as the second party. It is mentioned that the first party namely, Sri. D. Nemirajaiah was carrying on the partnership business under the name and style of 'M/s. Mamatha Enterprises', along with other two partners namely, Sri. K.M. Nagaraj and Sri. N. Manjunath. It is further mentioned that Sri. K.M. Nagaraj and Sri. N. Manjunath have expressed their willingness to retire from the firm due to their personal problems and Sri. N. Ajith has agreed to brought as a partner of the partnership business of the firm M/s. Mamatha Enterprises. 10. Adjudication upon the validity and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Authority) to send all the correspondences in future to his brother's place Sri. N. Amith as he was not capable of handling the matter and thereby he has authorized his brother Sri. N. Amith to show the accounts and receive the notice/correspondences from the assessing authority. This letter was received on the same day by the assessing authority i.e., on 29.07.2009. This would clarify that no objections were raised by Sri. N. Ajith before the Assessing Authority regarding the defective service of notice or disputing the partnership deed dated 01.04.1992, as now canvassed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Re. Point No.3 13. The third point is, the authorities have failed to allow the deductions claimed with respect to the ta....