G Mohan Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 15 February, 2010

MYSORE EHVEHON, MYSORE.I%fiUlY ALLOEHNG THE
APPEAL PETnm0N BY EHXMEYEM3 THE ASSESSMENT
ORDER AND PENAHFK ORDER DT282£Km5 PASSED
U/S1209 ANE>1200 OF THE ACE RESPECTDHflX'FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20032004 BY 1mm: DCCT
[ASSESSMENTS{Kfl,BANGALORE. 1"-

This STRP coming on for  0:1 

MANJUNATE-l J, macle the f01l0\vlz1g:~

oRDEEf

The legality and c0E1;'e-0LneS.S   passed by the
Karnataka Appellate: V  ifiéd 4. 12.2007
passed u1&;0a5§§i§l4/0005 Esgafieé hi quesuon H1 nus
petition.  V  2 _    

2.    this revision petition
are as    0

The _aSseS"See'  ci'-u_il0c'0n1.raCt0r executing the work of

 V'B;'uhv:i£0':Bz;nga._l0re Ma'ha~r1aga1'a Palike and other local bodies.

  is declaring the Sales tax pzzzyable by

hirz.iA'LiI10def "l'1:1':}'c'?..'::CO1T1]I)OSiCi0f1 nlethod. On 17.5.2003 the

 layssessec Vfiiigzdv Form N0.88AA and paici the tax for the year

 < ».'2'003%'04 and I'(3l.LEi'I1S in Form No.3 and ammlal reulrn of

"~i.L11*n over in Form No.4 were filed by him clec12u'i1'1g gross and

 turn over at RS.2.09.08.5lE3 and RS. 2.40,93,507/«.

'fl1ereafi.e1f (32,111 I1()E.i('.€S were issued in Form N0.27~/»\ L.mde1*

$1,}



Section 28(1) of KST ,/\Ct.._ 1957 directing t.he appeiiant herein
to produce the books of aeeoimis. Accordingly, the books of

accounts were produced by his power of attorney holder. It

was noticed that the assessee had declared total and 

income ai Rs.2.40.93.507/~ and he oI_'i"ei'e.dT't.{.2  it

4%. The assessee filed Form NVo*.5'_O issLied"--by va_i*i--ous 

totaliy Rs.i.o9.9i,460/~. The  over w.deC1Aared"*--.ehjk"'the
assessee was not accepted.  hi fj1".e_ biisiness
premises was illspfictfidVby:"th€"_:A$.t3i=éiE1i11:."CQII}.U1iSSiOI1€I' of
Cornrnerciat T£1X€S.A,}'3E111ga'1_Q1'_d'OI]  was noticed
that the assesse'e"'}1ia'd   the monthty
return fiied   2004 though he
had exeet_!.ie--d  of  3i}.d...f3~»ihE1- TMCS.

3. The_i'eai'teiVjda.V~p_rep»ositio.n iiotiee was served on the
appellant granting  1;)" file objections. if any, on t.he

ground that the Vrepiy'. \v7a_sV'i'i'oE': sent" to the notice. An order

sV'w_gis  topay"tii"e"'i,ax at Rs.8.36.341/~ and to pay the

"p€:nai'ty o=ft'i1e'«.sé1iiid sum by passing an order under Section

1A"4;'{~.(3'V)'.V.~()f  Being aggrieved by the said order he

V p1'ei'err._ed ,__*ein,-*'a13pea1 before the Joint Commissioner of

it ~'«._C»0mmer'e.ia1~ Taxes. Bangaiore. which appeat came to be

 _ ~ai'}<iv\1-'edeiii part. The penalty and tax were redtieed in par{'..

er'



Being not sat.isiied with the order passed by the Joint.
Commissioner. the assessee had filed an appeal before t.he

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which appeal is dismisshhedo.

Chalienging the eor1'ect'.ness oi" these two orders. the...pi"esent: 

revision. petition is filed.

4. We have heard the 1earne°d_iL:r)i.1nseI-.tor'both the
parties. __ ._ _  ._ , .
5. Though several grounds'w'eré'~ };trgedd_ =as' a question of

law, during the coLi_rsE:_ of   has raised
only two    it  there was no
suppressionmoi'"'t.ti'i'ni::i{eVr.   Vassessnieni, order was
required to be  Section 17(6) of the Act. the

order passedxunder"Sec'tionV.i-2(4) is illegal and therefore. the

orders ai'e reqL1ired._to be set aside.

 . =Il'er 'er§'nt'j'V*a.,t'le«a1'11ed CrOV€l'HE"I1€i11. Advocate submits that

in t.h"e._ c.avs&r.V.:i~'i' an order has been passed based on

:7.'"--Cdrnpositio:.3"oi' taxes. the contention of the learned counsel

 fo'1'._th.<'i? revision pet.it;ioner may be accepted. Since the order

.?nas__§n<)t' been passed under Section 17(8) of the Act. the

~  Assessing Officer was jLtst'ii'ied in passing an order by ievying

SW1'



aiiswering Ehe ques1.ic)11s of law E'1*2m':ed by us. we have E0
remand {he U}a1'.E'l€'}' to the Assessmg Officer for fresh
consideration in accordance with law by giving an
opportuniliy for the assesses in Show his Cause 
proposiiioh noiicxe claied 31.1.2005 and thereafter 

in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, this re{risi.0n _;3hetii:ic:fi._ i.é'a,lIowe&. 

 
ihi *.iIUDGE

saf-
JUDGE

    .....