1. Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.06.2009 at Annexure 'E' for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes acting under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956 r/w Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act of 2003: to quash the consequent demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure 'F: to strike down the interest levied as per Section 36 of the KVAT Act of 2003 and to declare and strike down Section 72(2) of the KVAT Act as unconstitutional.
2. According to the petitioner, stating that statutory forms i.e., declaration F' has not been tiled with local VAT Officer in respect of stock transfer. the 2nd respondent had issued the notice to which the petitioner furnished the particulars for the period 2006 2007 in relation to the assessment under Central Sales Tax Act of 1956, however, stating that stock transferred to its own branches within the State is not covered Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act and it only deals with stock transfer outside the Slate and that furnishing of the declaration tonus is not necessary for intra State transfer. Challenging the levying of tax as well as the penalty, stating that no notice was issued before levying the penalty and interest, these petitions have been filed.
3. Heard
4. According to the petitioner's Counsel, by letter dated 25.5.2009, petitioner has informed that the stocks worth Rs.3.53,16.035/- returned to their outside the State principals was also included in the total value of stock transfer as such, furnishing of F' declaration does not apply to such return of goods to the principals and in this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi and Company v. State of Karnataka reported in Sales Tax Cases (2001) vol.121 423. Even though, the 2nd respondent by order dated 15.06.2009 has levied tax on the value of goods returned to the Principals outside the Stale of Karnataka as well as on the value of intra-state transfer of stock of goods within the State and also levied interest and penalty under, the provisions of Section 36 and 72 of the KVAT Act.
5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the order of the Deputy Commissioner clearly depicts that there is issuance of notice dated 21.06.2008 and only for the sake of dispute the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has been questioned in these writ petitions.
6. In view of the amendment to Section 18A of the CST Act. Petitioner has to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, the concerned officer can exercise his discretion either to waive off the penalty or otherwise, if there is default on the part of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal within another four weeks and it is for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the application for condonation of delay to be filed leniently to entertain the appeal.