AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—Heard Sri Atul K. Alur, Counsel for the appellant and the Government Advocate for the respondent. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising the suo motu revisional powers vested in him u/s 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. While remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer, certain observations have been made by him, in regard to the manner in which Revenue Officer shall conduct themselves while passing the order.
Aggrieved by the observations made while passing the order of reassessment, the present appeal is filed.
Having heard the Counsel for the parties we do not see any reasons to allow this appeal for the following reasons.
The observations made by the Additional Commissioner is as under:
As the revenue is affected from his earlier reassessment orders, he is directed to afford opportunity to explain and support the cases of revenue to the LVO concerned and the respective administrative Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes so that the fresh reassessment orders could be passed correctly in accordance with law and revenue should not stand to injustice in regard to the liabilities determinable on the dealer assessee.
On perusal of the remarks made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the said remarks would no way prejudice the rights of the appellant because the said remarks is made against the officers of the State and the appellant cannot be considered as an aggrieved person, since he is only an assessee. It is only the guidelines for the concerned authorities the manner in which the order of assessment has to be passed. Therefore, there are no merits in these appeals. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed.