Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 787 to 790 of 2012. Case: Flow Serve India Controls Private Limited, Bangalore Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 787 to 790 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Sri Sanjay Kumar, Chartered Accountant for Appellant and For the Respondent: Sri B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative for Respondent |
| Judges | Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, DJM and P. Puttaraju, CTM |
| Issue | Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 2(33), 35; Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 37(2); Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 8(4); Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 - Rule 12(1) |
| Citation | 2013 (77) KarLJ 366 |
| Judgement Date | August 20, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
P. Puttaraju, CTM
-
These four appeals are filed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for four quarters of 2006-2007 read with Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as the 'Central Act' and the 'KVAT Act' respectively) against the appellate order concluded by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-5), Bangalore (for brevity, as 'FAA') in Case No. CST:AP:288/11-12, dated 23rd February, 2012 for the year 2006-2007. By the said impugned order, the FAA has directed the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-54), DVO-5, Bangalore (for brevity as 'AA') to modify his orders dated 30th May, 2011 and to issue revised demand notice. The appeal order and reassessment order are concluded under Section 9(2) of the Central Act by the FAA and AA for the year 2006-2007.
-
The relevant facts and grounds leading to these appeals are stated thus:
The appellant is in the business of manufacturing and selling of pumps, valves and its spare parts. The AA has reassessed the appellant under the Central Act and has created additional demand of tax due to non-submission of 'C' Forms and 'H' Forms. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the FAA who has modified the orders of the AA in part and has directed to issue revised demand notice. While doing so, the FAA has taken cognizance of six 'C' Forms and one 'I' Form. The appellant submits that even the FAA has not given sufficient time to file the balance 'C' and 'H' Forms. The only ground urged is that the buyers situated outside the State were unable to issue and said Forms because of various reasons which is not in the control of appellant.
-
On the above grounds, the prayer is made to set aside the impugned appeal orders of the FAA and so also that of the AA.
-
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant who reiterated the grounds of appeal. The learned State Representative is also heard.
-
The common question of law and facts are involved in all these four appeals and hence the same are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.
-
The only point which arises for our consideration is:
"Whether both the FAA and AA are correct in computing total turnover and taxable turnover under Central Act for the year?"
-
Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following:
Reasons
Perusal of the FAA and AA records reveals the fact that the FAA has determined total and taxable turnover for the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial