AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—These revision petitions are preferred against the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, holding that in the light of the functions of Hydraulic oil compared to Lubricating oil, it cannot be held on the basis of lower Court records and the appeal records that hydraulic oil is covered in the classification of lubricating oil or Hydraulic oil as nothing but lubricating oil. Therefore, the order of the lower Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is submitted that, after such remand, the Assessing Authority has passed an assessment order holding that Hydraulic oil is nothing but lubricating oil. Therefore, we do not see any merit in these revision petitions. The proper course for the assessee would be to challenge the order passed by the Assessing Authority by preferring an appeal. The reason being in the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has not recorded a categorical finding as to whether Hydraulic oil is totally different from lubricating oil or it is covered under lubricating oil.
At this stage, it is submitted that, because of the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal. We are of the view that, if the appeal is filed within 30 days from today, the First Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal without going into the question of limitation and decide the case on merits.
Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed. All pending I.As. are also accordingly dismissed.