2023 (6) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal] has been filed to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the alleged service of appeal order in VAT AP NO.12/17-18 dated 26.04.2019 on 19.05.2019 for the assessment period 2010-11 at the earlier business premises i.e. No. 109/3C, Tunganagara, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru-560091 is a valid service under Rule 176 of the KVAT Rules? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the alleged service of appeal order in VAT AP NO.68/18-19 dated 06.06.2019 on 13.06.2019 for the assessment period 2012-13 at the earlier business premises i.e. No. 109/3C, Tunganagara, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru-560091 is a valid service under Rule....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,05,000/- as purchase by an Unregistered Dealer ['URD']. On appeal, the JCCT [Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes], partly allowed assessee's appeal vide order dated April 26, 2019 with a direction to the AO to re-compute the tax liabilities and to issue a revised demand notice. Subsequently, the AO passed his order dated June 09, 2020 under Section 69(1) of the KVAT Act to give effect to the JCCT's order. 4. The re-assessment order for A.Y. 2012-13 was concluded on January 05, 2018 by the AO holding the sum of Rs. 2,47,60,420/- and the sum of Rs. 1,47,94,210/- cumulatively Rs. 4,26,97,463/- as contract receipts received as FD loan, unsecured capital investments, as estimated value for the purpose of levy of tax under composition sche....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nover of Rs .61,50,000/- considering as contract receipt is incorrect and the addition made is illegal. 7. In support of his contentions, Shri. Shankare Gowda has placed reliance upon following authorities: • ACIT Vs. Prem Kumar Rastogi 124 ITR 381; • Dina Nath Vs. CIT 204 ITR 667; • P. Vishwanath Vs. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal 141 STC 88. 8. Opposing the revision petition, Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, for the Revenue supported the Tribunal's order and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed assessee's appeal on the ground of delay and that it is the duty of the assessee to furnish change of address. 9. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ostal cover. The Petitioner submits that Appellate Authority's order has not been sent to the correct address and therefore, it cannot be construed that the appeal order as having been served to the Petitioner on 19.05.2019 as per the postal acknowledgment. It is submitted that the above date of service cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the limitation period for the reason that the service of the appeal order has been effected at the wrong address, where the Petitioner was not living". 12. In the course of arguments, learned Advocate for assessee submitted that the orders were sent to assessee's old address as mentioned in the postal acknowledgment receipt. We have perused the postal acknowledgement receipt produced a....