kp cars cst additional reply

Reply of defence 

In continuation of my earlier reply, I may be permitted to file an additional reply 

as follows

As far as the  CST  assessment completed for the year 2013-14 the audit observed that the addition proposed in the main notice under KVAT ACT 2005 is not being pursued in the CST assessment order.

In this connection, I may be permitted to reply that 

CST assessment was finalised separately on a date other than the date of finalizing the VAT assessment They produced all mandatory, C forms pertaining to their interstate sales. This has been verified and found correct. Hence CST assessment was completed, dropping the addition proposed. But this fact was not recorded in the original VAT order.VAT order was already finalised and while completing VAT order, CST  assessment details were not updated in it. As far as the CST assessment is concerned, there were no irregularities noticed and hence the original proposal was not pursued. But this fact was not recorded in the body of the VAT assessment order. It is only a defect that is technical in nature. No revenue loss has happened to the exchequer. The audit is not pursuing this in the draft para. Hence I request you to drop this allegation and exonerate me from the charges leveled against me 

The second defect pointed out  by audit is as under 

"Sales return  to the tune of Rs 2992421/- has been proposed in the pre-assessment notice. but it was not pursued further."

In this connection, I may be permitted to reply as follows 

While scrutinizing the monthly returns filed along with entries in KVATIS, for the months of October 2013 and November 2013, t theses sales return had been unearthed. Notices had been issued upon the assessee company, to produce details of these sales returns, and they failed to do so. Accordingly, this turnover had been assessed to tax vide these office proceedings No  32070438628/2013-14(11/2013) dtd 16.05.2014.

In the KGST Act, there was a provision for provisional assessment of monthly returns filed. All these provisional assessments, completed, became, null and void, as and when the final assessment is completed. Under the  KVAT ACT there is no such provision for automatically annulment, monthly returns already completed.it is under the one and same provision both monthly assessments and provisional assessments are finalised. Hence if that turnover cannot be assessed again. So the turnover of sales return was not pursued in the final KVAT order 

Hence this turnover was not again assessed in the VAT  order.No mistake was there in dropping the turnover already proposed in the pre-assessment notice.

Hence I request you again to exonerate me from the charges leveled against me 

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Yours Faithfully

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         V.G UMA DEVI

                                                                                                       (Asst.commissioner,Assessment,

                                                                                                        Special Circle, 111,Ernakulam.

                                                                                                         Retired)

Edappilly

01.06.2019