Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)SCALE586; (2008)3SCC698; (2008)12VST386(SC); 2008AIRSCW903; 2008(2)AIRKarR277
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 12791-12794 of 2006Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act').2. The controversy relates to assessment year 2002-2003. The appellant had filed the Revision Petitions questioning correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') in STA Nos798-801 of 2003. The appeals were filed before the Tribunal under Section 22(1) of the Act against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Authority'). The said authority confirmed the provisional assessment orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Authority') for the months of May, June, July and September, 2002. 3. Fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005]142STC153(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a case which clearly reveals arbitrary and mala fide action on the part of the respondent No. 2 assessing officer.2. Though the record indicates that the assessee had, in fact, made it clear that he had opted for payment of tax by way of composition under the provisions of Section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, before passing of the assessment order, though there is supporting material to this effect on the record itself, the assessing officer, nevertheless, denies the benefit of payment of tax by composition provided under Section 17(6) of the Act and has proceeded to pass the assessment order de hors the provision.3. The assessment order again suffers from a total non-application of mind as while assessing to tax the turnover under the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act, the assessing officer has levied tax on the entire turnover i.e., on the entire value of the works contract itself at 10 per cent without deducting the value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006]143STC86(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This case involves an interesting question of law requiring a decision at the hands of this Court. Facts in brief are as under :Petitioner registered dealer entered into works contract with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., in terms of annexure A. In respect of the said works contract undertaken, petitioner opted for composition of tax in terms of Section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in lieu of the amount payable under the said Act. Petitioner states that the works contract undertaken under the contract dated November 24, 1995 was executed over a period of three years. In as much as the petitioners have opted for composition scheme, the assessment in respect of the said assessment years were duly completed under Section 17(6) accepting the composition of tax for the assessment years 1996-97. While concluding the assessment tax has been levied at Rs. 15,49,049 which has already been remitted by the petitioner. After assessment proceedings, petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR844; [2004]138STC75(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is the Karnataka Construction Corporation Ltd. which is a Government of Karnataka undertaking and a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this petition filed under Section 23(1) of the Act, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 3rd June 2003 made in STA No. 790 of 2002 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal had confirmed the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Commissioner'), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order made by the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim of the petitioner that a portion of the work shown in the composition does not fall under Section 5B of the Act.2. The facts leading to this petition can be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2089; JT2002(Suppl1)SC118; 2002(2)KarLJ67; 2002(4)SCALE468; (2003)9SCC583; [2002]3SCR854; [2002]127STC105(SC)
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. In this batch of appeals by special leave common questions arise for consideration and therefore the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question which arise for consideration are whether Sub-section 6 of the Section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional, and secondly, whether the amendment brought in Clause (i) of Sub-section 6 of Section 17 of the Act by Act No.7 of 1997 retrospectively is also unconstitutional. The High Court of Karnataka has answered both these questions in the negative and against the appellants. The main judgment was rendered in the writ petition preferred by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 902 of 199. The remaining matters were disposed of by the High Court following the aforesaid judgment.3. To determine the question that arise for consideration, it is necessary to notice the legislati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]125STC287(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Sri Veda Murthy, learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents and is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks from today.2. Though the matter is listed in preliminary hearing 'B' group, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the Us, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. Petitioner is a contractor. He is also registered himself under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1997-98, petitioner had approached the respondent-assessing authority seeking permission for composition of tax as provided under Section 17(6) of the Act. Accepting the request so made by the petitioner, the assessing authority, has proceeded with the matter under Section 17(6) of the Act. Thereafter, petitioner had approached the respondent-authorities requesting them to complete the assessment in his case not under Section 17(6) of the Act, but under Section 5-B of the Act. The request so made by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]127STC103(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The arguments advanced before us are same as were raised before the learned single Judge.2. The learned single Judge after going through the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised before it crystallised the points into two questions reproduced below :'(i) Whether Sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Act as amended by means of Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional and as such, declared to be void ?(ii) Whether Act No. 7 of 1997, which has made Act No. 5 of 1996 retrospective in operation, is unconstitutional and as such, declared to be void ?'The learned single Judge concluded the first point against the appellants relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India : AIR1997SC3640 which is directly on the point and covers the point as in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner unsuccessfully tried before the single Judge that the judgment in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India : AIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1993]90STC516(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner asserts himself to be a dealer in a hotel business. The hotel is registered as Sri Laxmi Bhavan Tiffin Room and Coffee Works. In addition to the hotel business, he is also carrying on business in coffee powder and leco. The writ petition pertains to the year 1984-85. 2. The petitioner sought the benefit of composition under section 17(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). The petitioner's application was rejected and ultimately an order of assessment came to be made. 3. The short question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 17(4) of the said Act and the said benefit could be confined to the turnover pertaining to the hotel business as sought for by the petitioner 4. Section 17 provides for composition of tax. As per sub-section (1), certain dealers are entitled to seek the benefit, other than a dealer liable to tax under section 5(3)(a) or a dealer referred to in section 10(2). By amendment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1123
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The Full Bench has this question before it : 'Whether a person agreeing to the composition of the offence under section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is not entitled to challenge the said proceedings held under section 31 under any circumstances, by invoking the appellate provisions of section 20 of the Act ?' 2. Section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads thus : '31. Composition of offences. - The prescribed authority may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence punishable under this Act, by way of composition of such offence - (a) where the offence committed is under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 29 or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, in addition to the tax or amount not paid or evaded to be paid, a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees or double the amount of the tax or amount so remaining unpaid or evaded to be paid whichever is greater, and (b) in other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Assessee under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 against the order dated 23rd May, 2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi ( ˜Tribunal') in Appeal No.637/ATVAT/08-09 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2004-05. 2. The Assessee is engaged in the business of executing pure labour contracts, under which the Assessee supplies skilled and unskilled labour for excavation work. The Assessee also executes contracts which involves transfer of property in goods and the same are exigible to tax under the provisions of The Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999 ( ˜Act'). The Assessee is a registered dealer with the Department of Trade and Taxes. 3. The Assessee submitted its Sales Tax Return on 30th June, 2005 for the AY 2004-05 declaring a turnover of Rs. 3,49,99,618/-. Later the Assessee revised the said return declaring a gross turnover of Rs. 4,73,32,324/-. According to the Assessee the s...
Tag this Judgment!