TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal"), in ST Rectification Application Nos.05 to 07/2018 (in STA Nos.304 to 306/ 2016), dated 24.06.2019. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the KST Act"), and is engaged in the business of edible coconut oil and coconut hair oil under the brand names "Parachute", "Oil of Malabar", "Parachute Jasmine" and "Hair and Care". The assessment orders for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 were passed levying tax on the sale of coconut oil sold under brand names by applying Sl. No.17-A of Part 'C' of the Second Schedule at the rate of 20%. 3.1 The said Entry 17-A was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.28125/2002, contending that it was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was allowed and the amendment was struck down. However, the orders of assessment were not set aside in the said writ proceedings. 3.2 The order passed in the writ petition was challenged in Writ Appeal No.649/2006. The Division Bench, by order dated 15.12.2009, reported in 2011 (70) KLJ 93, set aside the order of the learned Single Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20.08.2003, for the assessment year 2003-04 is dated 23.06.2004, and for the assessment year 2004-05 is dated 12.04.2005. It is submitted that the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment imposing tax at 20%. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the amendment. However, in the appeal preferred by the State, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge while upholding the validity of the amendment and clarified the legal position. 4.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner filed an application for rectification on 18.01.2010 seeking modification of the assessment orders in conformity with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. It is contended that, in terms of the second proviso to Section 25-A(1) of the KST Act, such an application cannot be rejected after the expiry of 60 days, and consequently, the same is deemed to have been allowed. 4.2 Learned counsel submits that, in terms of Section 13-A of the KST Act, if the refund is not granted within 90 days, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period of delay. It is submitted that the rectific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation order in accordance with law. 5.1 It is further submitted that, by the revisional order dated 14.01.2011, the rectification order dated 08.04.2010 was set aside, with a direction to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh assessment. Pursuant thereto, a fresh assessment order was passed and refund was issued. Learned AGA submits that the appeal challenging the fresh assessment order as well as the refund order came to be dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 17.12.2011, and the said order has attained finality, as the same has not been challenged further. 5.2 It is further submitted that, while considering the challenge to the order rejecting the request for interest, the Tribunal, by its order dated 25.01.2018, rejected the appeals by holding that the relevant period is to be reckoned from 23.03.2010, i.e., the date on which the copy of the judgment of the Division Bench was made available to the Assessing Authority. It is therefore contended that the impugned order rejecting the rectification application by order dated 24.06.2019 is justified. It is also submitted that, in the absence of a challenge to the main order dated 25.01.2018, the order rejecting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sachet or bottle as a toilet article. By looking into the ingredients of the coconut oil sold by two different companies, it is clear it is only a pure coconut oil and neither meant as edible oil nor as hair oil. But the bottle produced by the respondent- assessee of Parachute company has got two brand names, one is sold as a pure coconut oil and another is a coconut hair oil. The ingredients of the hair oil sold under the name of Parachute has got a different ingredients than the one manufactured and sold by the same company as 100 per cent pure coconut oil. Considering these aspects, we are of the opinion that the learned judge has not taken into account distinction between the hair oil and edible oil. Since this aspect has not been considered, we are of the view the learned judge has committed an error in granting a relief to the assessee in declaring the amendment as unconstitutional in violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Considering the facts and background of the amendment brought in, we are of the view that whenever coconut oil is manufactured and sold as hair oil, the same would attract tax at higher rate of 15 per cent and 20 per cent as per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, the mistake in which was rectified, has been passed." In view of the legal fiction engrafted in the second proviso, where an application made by the assessee for rectification is not rejected by the Assessing Authority within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt, the order is deemed to have been amended so as to rectify the mistake. 8.4 In the present case, no order rejecting the rectification application has been passed. However, it is the contention of the State that the order of the Division Bench was made available to the Assessing Authority only on 23.03.2010 and, taking note of the same, a rectification order came to be passed on 08.04.2010. It is, however, not clear as to whether the said rectification order dated 08.04.2010 was passed pursuant to the rectification application dated 18.01.2010 or in exercise of suo motu powers. 8.5 The rectification order dated 08.04.2010 was subjected to revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(2) of the KST Act. By order dated 14.01.2011, the said rectification order was set aside, with a direction to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench. In complian....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.12.2009, which was received by the Assessing Authority on 22.01.2010. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Authority had knowledge of, and was in possession of, the judgment of the Division Bench as on 22.01.2010. 9.3 The rectification application dated 18.01.2010 was not rejected within the period of 60 days as stipulated under Section 25-A of the KST Act. In view of the second proviso to Section 25-A(1), the said application is deemed to have been allowed and the assessment orders stood amended by operation of law upon expiry of 60 days from 22.01.2010, i.e., the date of receipt of the application. 9.4 Though it may be open to the Assessing Authority to pass more than one rectification order, the same must be in conformity with the statutory provisions. Once the rectification application dated 18.01.2010 stood allowed by virtue of the legal fiction, and the deemed rectification had come into force, the question that arises is whether the Assessing Authority could pass another rectification order in derogation thereof. The answer must be in the negative. 9.5 It is not the case that the authorities were without remedy. However, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntinues to hold the field. The right that has accrued pursuant to such deemed rectification cannot be divested by subsequent proceedings which are themselves without jurisdiction. Moreover, none of the aforesaid orders dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refund in the light of the law declared by the Division Bench. The Tribunal, in its orders dated 25.01.2018 and 24.06.2019, has proceeded on an erroneous premise that the judgment of the Division Bench came to the notice of the Assessing Authority only on 23.03.2010, and that there was no delay if the period was reckoned from the said date for the purpose of determining the petitioner's entitlement to interest. 9.10 We find that the aforesaid observation and finding are contrary to the law and material on record. The rectification application dated 18.01.2010, enclosing a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench, bears the acknowledgment seal of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 22.01.2010. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Authority had knowledge of the judgment of the Division Bench as on 22.01.2010. 9.11 Be that as it may, by operation of law, the rectification application dated 18.....