(1.) THE Petitioner has sought for the following relief: to declare the conferment of power of Suo Moto Revision Under Section 64(2) on the Commissioner, in so far as it relates to clarification issued by ACAR, as being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India and being opposed to Public interest and as being unfair and violative of scheme of Section 60 of KVAT Act
(2.) THOUGH such a relief is prayed for by the Petitioner, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the prayer made in the writ petition can be treated as having been made by the Petitioner for a clarification that the order to be passed by the Commissioner based on notice at Annexure -A should not have retrospective effect.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the Petitioner approached the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling for getting clarification in respect of revised tax under KVAT Act. The said authority gave clarification as per the order dated 28.3.2007, clarifying that the concerned juices are covered by Entry No. 3 of III Schedule to the KVAT Act and are liable to tax at 4%. Thus, it is clear that the said clarification by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling binds the Petitioner herein who has sought for clarification in respect of the goods and transaction in relation to which the clarification as sought for. The Officers of the Department are also bound by such clarification. Pursuant to such clarification, the Petitioner is said to have been paying tax at 4%, However, as aforementioned, notice came to be issued as per Annexure -A by the Commissioner under Section 64(2) of KVAT Act on 15.7.2010 proposing to revise the clarification issued by the authority. According to the Commissioner, the clarification issued by the authority is erroneous and the same is prejudicial to the interest of such exchequer.