As the factual score in all the cases has the companyour of similitude barring the numerical figures and the arithmetical companyputations, we shall advert to the facts in the appeal where Ayili Stone Industries is the respondent assessee.
Thereafter, the assessing authority reopened the assessment.
The said authority referred to Entry No.
The assessing authority finalised the assessment for certain assessment years allowing exemption on polished granite stone on the basis that polished granite stones were produced from out of the tax suffered from rough granite blocks.
While passing the order of reassessment, the Assessing Officer opined certain amount had been allowed exemption as second sale mentioning in the order of assessment that the granite stones sold within the State were polished out of unpolished granite blocks locally purchased on demand of sales tax.
574 575/2011 and other companynected matters preferred under Section 24 1 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for brevity, the Act , on 4th December, 2012 whereby it has overturned the order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore in a batch of suo motu revisions under Section 12 A 1 of the Act whereby the revisional authority has opined that there had been an erroneous order in the appeal causing loss to the State exchequer and accordingly issued numberices to the companycerned assesses requiring them to participate in the revision petitions and file written objections and put forth their stand availing the opportunity of being heard.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.
The respondent assessee is a dealer under the Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for short, CST Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in granite stone.
Dipak Misra, J. These appeals, by special leave, assail the companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in STA No.
