TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Circle, Thrissur, representing the State/Department is the contesting respondent. The parties are common in the writ petitions as well as O T Revisions. The issue arising in the batch of cases, both in fact and law, is the same. The differentiating circumstance is the assessment years during which the issues have arisen. The cases, hence, are disposed of by this common order. 2.1 The batch cases, for convenience, is classified as W.P.(C) No.40663/2018 and W.P.(C) No.16505/2022 as one group wherein the assessment order is challenged, or notice issued under Rule 6(5) of Central Sales Tax Kerala Rules 1957 is challenged. O.T. Revisions, the other category, are directed against the common order dated 01.02.2019 in TA (VAT) Nos.109/17 and connected cases. The details of the year of assessment and order against which the tax appeal is filed in this Court, both in the Writ Petitions and O T Revisions, are stated thus: Assessment year Order of the Dy. Commissioner Modified Assessment order of the Asst. Commissioner Order of the Tribunal W.P.(C) 2013-14 2014-15 KVATA 10/16 dtd 26.05.2017 KVATA 3767/16 dtd 26.05.2017 32080788022/2013-14 dtd 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... KVATA 10/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.M) KVATA 3767/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.N) 32080788022/2013-dtd 29.12.2018 (Ext.O) 32080788022/2014-dtd 01.01.2019 (Ext.P) T.A (VAT) No.113/2017 dtd 01.02.2019 57/2020 2013-14 2014-15 KVATA 10/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.M) KVATA 3767/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.N) 32080788022/2013-dtd 29.12.2018 (Ext.O) 32080788022/2014-dtd 01.01.2019 (Ext.P) T.A (VAT) No.110/2017 dtd 01.02.2019 61/2020 2013-14 2014-15 KVATA 10/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.M) KVATA 3767/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.N) 32080788022/2013-dtd 29.12.2018 (Ext.O) 32080788022/2014-dtd 01.01.2019 (Ext.P) T.A (VAT) No.111/2017 dtd 01.02.2019 79/2020 2013-14 2014-15 KVATA 10/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.M) KVATA 3767/16 dtd26.05.2017 (Ext.N) 32080788022/2013-dtd 29.12.2018 (Ext.O) 32080788022/2014-dtd 01.01.2019 (Ext.P) T.A (VAT) No.117/2017 dtd 01.02.2019 103/2020 2013-14 2014-15 KVATA 10/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.M) KVATA 3767/16 dtd 26.05.2017 (Ext.N) 3208....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle to assess the classification issue afresh. The operative portion of the order of Deputy Commissioner reads thus: "In view of the above Clarification coupled with the judgments, I am of the view that the assessment was completed without conducting proper enquiry under law. Therefore, the Assessing Authority is directed to conduct appropriate enquiry and re-do the assessment afresh based on the findings of the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority. For the above purpose, the assessment order is Set aside for fresh disposal. Order accordingly." 4.1 The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.8879/2018 praying for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle to complete the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment year 2013-14 by keeping in perspective Ext.P1 order dated 26.05.2017. On 15.03.2018, the writ petition was disposed of, and the operative portion reads thus: "3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to complete the assessment as directed in Ext.P1 order, within two m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ref. 12 cited was issued to the assessee offering an opportunity of personal hearing on 21-12-2018. This notice was communicated to the assessee on 13-12-2018 and duly acknowledged on the same day. On 21-12-2018, the assessee filed another reply which is appended below: *** *** *** I have verified the reply filed by the assessee in detail. In this reply the assessee stated the chronological details of the incident taken place regarding the assessment procedures and it ends with a cautionary in view that the clear possibility of malice if the assessing authority moves with the assessment procedure. I have considered this reply before finalising the assessment. These points were already considered in detail in the first reply filed by the assessee. The commodities in the schedules are allotted with code Numbers which are developed by the International Customs Organization as Harmmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) and adopted by the Customs Tariff Act 1975. Verification of the assessment records, revealed that the assessee imported machines under three HSN codes namely 9022.90.90, 9022.19.00 and 9027.90.90 (as per bill of entry) and misclassified the same under HS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment is that by referring to the chronology of events on 26.05.2017 the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeals filed by the dealer/petitioner. Therefore, the classification adopted, at the first instance, was set aside and in view of the nature of the controversy specific directions have been given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Department, having felt the need, obtained the opinion from the Executive Engineer Electronics Division Thrissur. The opinion is categorical to classify the commodity as 'Spectrum Analyser'. 7.2 Secondly, the Assistant Commissioner (Special Circle) cannot be said to have denied an opportunity to the dealer/ petitioner while making assessment orders in Exts.P15 and P16. But, the inadequacy in either consideration or procedural fairness would certainly arise from the opportunity availed by the dealer/petitioner and consideration of grounds/materials brought on record while making the orders in Exts.P15 and P16. The classification in the case on hand ought to have been undertaken firstly from the product details, the purpose of the product, commercial utility, HSN codes etc by referring to which commodity was imported, and Annexure 1 of the KVAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Instruments Pvt Ltd is the petitioner in the O.T. Revisions. The Revisions are filed against the common order dated 01.02.2019 of the Tribunal. The details of Assessment Year etc are stated in the tabular form and are not reiterated. The petitioner questions the order of remand made by the Tribunal as illegal and avoidable. The operative portion reads as follows: "32. The only other appeal which remains for our consideration is TA VAT 799/17 which is an appeal field by the assessee relating to the CST assessment for the year 2014-15. In this appeal, the following two contentions have been raised before us: "2. The interference in the figures computed and filed before the assessing authority by way of statutory audit report is very much limited and at any cost it should not disturbed the accounting principles. Here in this case, the assessing authority has wrongly interfered with the figures of trading result under the pretext of best judgment of estimation. 3.Credit notes produced to the extent of Rs.1,37,147/- is not considered is improper and not reconciling with the best judgment assessment, when tallied and judged with the audited statement." ....