Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2010)27VST390(Karn)
Aravind Kumar, J.1. The assessee is questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Authority for clarifications and Advance Ruling in order No. AR. CLR. 436/2003-06 dated 18.4.2006 under Section 16 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tax' for brevity).2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant is having an industrial unit at Kodigehalii village, Doddaballapur Taluk engaged in extraction of chilly oleoresin from dry chillies. It was contended by the appellant before the Advance Ruling Authority that, by virtue of the process carried out for the extraction of oleoresin, parts of the dry chilly that remains thereafter is termed or called in common parlance as dry chillies, skinned/cut chilly and crushed chilly or spent chilly.3. It was the contention of the appellant that under Section 3 of the Act, is the charging section, Sub-section (1) prescribes that tax is to be levied on every sale of goods i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2010)29VST308(Karn)
B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single judge dated March 6, 2009 (Sap India Private Limited v. State of Karnataka [2009] 23 VST 276 (Kar)) passed in W. P. Nos. 2647 to 2650 of 2009 by which the writ petitions filed by the appellants are dismissed. By an interim order dated March 30, 2009 stay as sought in Misc. W. 3042 of 2009 in these appeals was granted till the next date of hearing and extended subsequently and on April 24, 2009 an interim order of stay was granted subject to deposit of 25 per cent of the demand made by the respondent-authority. The stay order was challenged before the apex court and the same was stayed and further direction was given that the main matter in the appeals be disposed of by this Court. Hence, we have heard these writ appeals for final disposal.2. The demand made by the respondent-authority under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the KVAT Act', for short) pursuant to assessment orders passed ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest YES ORDER.1. The petitioner has prayed for, inter alia, the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notices of default payment of taxes and default assessment of penalties for the financial year 2007-08 (April 2007 to March 2008). The said notices and default assessment of penalties have been annexed as Annexures B (Collectively) and C (Collectively) alongwith the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Additional Commissioners order dated 09.10.2009 which confirmed the Value Added Tax Officers order with regard to default assessment of taxes.2. Initially, when the writ petition was filed, the second prayer was not sought because that stage had not been reached. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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 Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to prohibit the Respondents, their officers, servants agents and/or their successors in office from holding any proceedings pursuant to or in furtherance of the notice dt. 1.12.08 vide ann-G and notice dt. 1.12.08 vide anx-G1, and notice dt. 1.9.09 vide anx-L and etc.) 1. A learned Single Judge, by order dt. 8/2/2010, referred these petitions to the Division Bench to be heard along with W.P.623/02, since the questions raised therein are identical to the question that arise for decision-making in these petitions. Petitioner has assailed the notices of even date 1.12.2008 Annexures-G and G1 and notice dt. 1.9.2009 Annexure-L of the 5th and 6th respondents, respectively, and seek a declaration that the petitioner’s premises is not a ‘marriage hall’ as defined under the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, for short the ‘Act’, sequentially not chargeable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash annexure B dated 10.3.2010, by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on Dy. Commr. Of Comml. Taxes (Enforcement) 1 to pass assessment / reassessment orders under the VAT Act, 2003, etc.) Petitioner, a manufacturer of pesticides, is challenging the amendment brought in to the III Schedule of Entry 23 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 during 2008 permitting imposition of tax on insecticides that are used other than for agricultural purposes at 12.50% in stead of at 4%. According to the petitioner, he is a manufacturer of pesticides / insecticides. The order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) 1, South Zone for passing of assessment / reassessment order in the case of the petitioner under S.39(1) of the VAT Act for the tax period from August 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Petitioner, a manufacturer of pesticides, is challenging the amendment brought in to the III Schedule of Entry 23 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. 2003 during 2008 permitting imposition of tax on insecticides that are used other than for agricultural purposes at 12.50% in stead of at 4%.2. According to the petitioner, he is a manufacturer of pesticides/ insecticides. The order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) 1, South Zone for passing of assessment / reassessment order in the case of the petitioner under S.39(l) of the VAT Act for the tax period from August 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to January 2010, is opposed to principles of natural justice since already the authority has determined that petitioner is liable to pay tax at higher rate of 12.5% on sale of household insecticides, pesticides and rodenticides.3. Heard the counsel representing the parties.4. It is the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.10882/2008 (T-RES) dated 31.01.2009. This STRP filed under Section 65(1) of KVAT Act, Against the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2009 passed in STA.No.263/2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing the appeal filed under Section 72(1) of KVAT Act 2003.) 1. All these appeals are preferred by the State, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9689/2006 and other connected matters, wherein the provisions of sub-Section(1) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) were declared unconstitutional. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Writ Petition. 3. All the petitioners are registered dealers under the Act. Section 35 of the Act read with Rule 38 prescribes that ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
This appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in construing the Schedule Entry C-74 to mean footwear predominantly made of plastic and not as footwear exclusively/entirely made of plastic; and (ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the goods of the respondent namely "Escort 111 SYN Black" sold through invoice dated 25-08/2005" though admittedly not wholly made of plastic would be covered by the Schedule Entry C-74. 2. The Respondent engages in the business of the import and sale of footwear at Pune and is registered under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. An application was submitted on 25 December 2007 to the Commissioner for a determination under Section 56 of the Act, accompanied by a Tax Invoice1 for a product described as Escort 111 SYN Black. The contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. These petitions raise common issues and are, therefore, being decided together. Briefly put, the challenge is to the Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to the extent it imposes a tax on entertainment through 'direct-to-home (DTH) service'. Rival Contentions 2. Mr Ganesh, senior advocate, appearing for Bharti Telemedia Ltd and Mr Aman Lekhi, senior advocate, appearing for Tata Sky Ltd and Bharat Business Channel Ltd, contented on behalf of the petitioners that the DTH service is a broadcasting service falling within the meaning of taxable service under section 65(105)(zk) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is amenable to service tax @10.33% on the gross amount paid by a subscriber for providing the DTH broadcasting service. The service tax is imposed by the Finance Act, 1994 in exercise of Parliament's exclusive power to levy a tax on services under article 246(1) read with Entry 92C of List I of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution...
Tag this Judgment!