2022 (7) TMI 1115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the common Order dated 25.09.2019 in T.A. Nos.6/2017, 7/2017 & 8/2017. Hence, the Revisions are also disposed of by this common order. 2.1 The Revisions are filed under Section 41 of the KGST Act 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The revision petitioner was a dealer registered under the Act. The Revision Petitions arise from the following orders, for the respective Assessment Years. Sl. No. Asssmnt Year Assessment date Order of Deputy Commissioner Supreme Court Order Order of Deputy Commissioner on remand Order of Tribunal S.T.Rev No. 1 1996-97 29.09.2006 A5-5058/04(1) dt.12.01.2005 CA 268/2016 Dt.15.1.2016 M5-776(1)/SM/2016 dt.30.09.2016 TA 6/2017 dt.25.09.2019 8/2020 2 1997-98 29.0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... portion of the order reads thus: "17. In view of the above, we set aside the orders passed by the High Court as well as the Tribunal. We now remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to review the orders passed by him, on 27.07.1995 and give one more opportunity to the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law." 3.1 On 30.09.2016 the Deputy Commissioner, Mattancherry, upon reconsideration, passed the following order: "ORDER NO: M5-776 (1)/SM/2016 DATED 30.09.2016 In exercise of the powers vested upon me as per section Sec 35 (2) (c) of the KGST Act 1963, the assessment for the year 1996-97 in respect of Sri. M.E. Azeez, Proprietor of M/s. Vanchinadu Industries, Rayamangalam finalized on 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 i.e., the period between the show cause notice and disposal by the Supreme Court. The other portion is between the order dated 30.09.2016 and the order of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2019. It is argued that the manner in which the violation of principles of natural justice was canvassed and proved by the dealer, the Apex Court granted relief to the dealer, and afforded one more opportunity to the dealer before making an order under Section 35 of the Act. It is not the case of the dealer that the order in Annexure E was made without compliance with the directives of the Apex Court. Therefore, the extended limb of the argument on the deficiency of service of notice etc is not available to the dealer. Independent of the above argument, while in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....next question is whether the exercise of suo motu revision by the Deputy Commissioner is correct and whether the order made thereon is sustainable. The grounds so much depend on the infirmity that could be pointed out against the order of the Tribunal in this behalf. Paragraph no.23 of the common order of the Tribunal reads thus: "23. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot accept the appellant's contention that the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act is bad in law. It is an admitted fact that while completing the original assessments under Section 17(3) of the Act for all the three years, the penalty proceedings of the Intelligence Officer was not before the assessing officer. It is for this cogent reason....