HARISON Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT, a dealer in cotton yarn was a partnership firm and was rejected both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('kst Act' for short) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('cst Act' for short ). During the period 1. 11. 1978 to 21. 10. 1979, the appellant firm was dealing in cotton yarn and according to the appellant firm, it had transferred cotton yarn worth Rs. 89,04,733. 05 ps, to its branch office in Ponda-Goa. The appellant firm had filed its annual returns in Forum-4 both under the KST Act as well as CST Act and in so far as its CST turnover is concerned, it had declared that its taxable turnover is 'nil'. The assessing authority had passed an order under the provisions of CST Act, as 'non-assessable'. This order came to be reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Belgaum, who was of the view that the order passed by the assessing authority requires to be revised, since the same is improper, illegal and prejudicial to, the interest of the revenue and therefore, had referred the matter to the revisional authority to initiate proceedings the, order passed by the assessing authority for the, assessment period in question.

(2.) THE revising authority after verifying the Forum F declarations produced by the assessee before the assessing authority in support of its claim of stock transfer, being of the view that the assessing authority without verifying any of the transaction relating to the consignment transfer and, the movement of goods thereon, has mechanically accepted the form declarations, had issued notice to the assessee under Section 22-A (1) of the CST Act, interalia directing him to show cause why the order passed 'by the assessing authority for the assessment year indispute under CST Act should not be revised and a direction to the assessing-authority to redo the assessment in so far as CST assessments should, not be passed. The revising authority after considering the objections filed in response to the notice, had set aside the order passed by the assessing authority under CST Act and had remanded the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

(3.) THE assessee, being aggrieved by the remand order passed by the revisional authority, had questioned the same before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal had only observed that the revising authority while remanding the matter had not issued any directions nor has made any observations which would be binding on the assessing authority and therefore, the dealer cannot have any grievance with the order passed by the revising authority. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the assessee before this Court in STRP No. 77/1991 and this Court by its order dated 3. 7. 1991, has rejected the petition, but had reserved liberty to the assessee to raise all such contentions which are available to it including certain issues raised in the petition before the appropriate forum, in the event, the assessee has to question the order of assessment that may be passed pursuant to the remand order passed by the revisional authority.