TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal. 2. We have heard Sri T.R. Sathyanarayana, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Smt. Jyoti M. Maradi, learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record. 3. It is the principal contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the Co-ordinate Bench, while dismissing STA No. 1/2024, proceeded primarily on the basis that sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the assessee to produce the relevant documentary evidence, including the books of account, despite he failed to do so. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph No.30 of the impugned order, wherein it was recorded that the De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STATE TAX OFFICERS - 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan - 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, has held in paragraph 10 as under: "10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so." 7. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring to PARSION DEVI Vs. SUMITRI DEVI - (1997) 8 SCC 715 has held in paragraph 11 as under: "U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest of Rs. 2,32,26,245/- and penalty of Rs.18,82,156/-. 11. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the appeal: Question No. 1: Whether the then consultant issued his personal cheque to the extent of refund wrongly availed to the office of LVO -540? Question No. 2 Whether an order passed by predecessor can be altered in the order passed by the Successor in a different direction? Question No. 3: Whether proceedings instituted pursuant to a notice under section 64(1) of the KVAT issued in contravention of Rule 154 of the KVAT Rules 2005 can be sustained? Question No. 4: Validity of consideration of total turnovers as per erroneous monthly returns filed in form VAT-100 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax periods from April 2016 to March 2017; (ii) the assessment order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-540, Bidar, under Section 38(5) of the KVAT Act for the tax period June 2017 of the financial year 2017-18; and (iii) the reassessment order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Audit, Bidar, under Section 39(1) read with Sections 72(2) and 74(4) of the KVAT Act for the tax periods April 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017 pertaining to the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18, whereby tax, interest and penalty came to be levied under the provisions of the Act. 13. It is further contended that the said appeals, upon conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the authorities that certain documents had been lost due to theft and, in support thereof, had produced a copy of the FIR registered at Bidar concerning the theft of records pertaining to the relevant assessment years. Notwithstanding the same, the authorities proceeded to conclude the proceedings without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to reconstruct and produce the relevant documentary evidence, including the books of account and other supporting records. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal by setting the order passed by the respondent. 16. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the issues arising for consideration in the present pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to be rejected inasmuch as, despite granting opportunity, the assessee failed to avail the same. The respondent at Para 30 of the impugned order has observed as under: "30. In support of the contentions urged, the DAR of the appellant even at appeal stage has not submitted any books of account related to the actual expenses incurred towards labour & like charges for the tax periods of the financial years 2016-17 & 2017-18 (up to June-17). The DAR present has submitted copy of FIR filed before the jurisdictional police station related to loss of books of account by the appellant related to the financial years 2016-17 & 2017-18 (up to June-17 & requested to allow time to prepare & submit the relevant vouchers based on payments....