Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 2094 to 2124, of 2012. Case: O.G. Auto Gas, N.H. 17, Udyavara, Udupi Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 2094 to 2124, of 2012 |
| Counsel | Sri Abdul Khader Iddya, Tax Practitioner for Appellant: Sri B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative for Respondent |
| Judges | S.L Subramanya, CTM and Rasavaraj S. Sappanna Var, DMJ |
| Issue | Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 39(1), 36(1), 72(2); Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 3(2)(b) |
| Citation | 2013 (77) KarLJ 342 |
| Judgement Date | June 04, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
S.L Subramanya, CTM
-
These thirty-one appeals filed under Section 63(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'Act'') are directed against the common appeal order passed under Section 62 of the Act on 27-7-2012 for the tax periods from September 2007 to March 2010 by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore Division, Mangalore (for brevity 'FAN) by which the appeals filed against the orders passed under Sections:\9(1), 72(2) and 36(1) of the Act passed on 27-6-2011 by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Debt Management), VAT Division, Mangalore (for short, 'AA') were dismissed.
-
On account of existence of similar facts and law, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
-
Briefly, the facts are stated thus:
The appellant (for short, 'assessee'), a partnership firm, is dealer in auto gas, auto kits and gas containers. Reassessment orders under Section 39(1) were passed by the AA. On certain grounds, best judgment assessments were concluded resulting in additional tax liability Penalty under Section 72(2) and interest under Section 36(1) have also been levied.
-
The AA observed that the assessee had not collected tax separately in the tax invoices issued to the customers/consumers. But, it was observed that by removing tax portion which was calculated on the application of formula according to the rate of tax, the value of the goods sold and the tax element/component have been worked out on which basis, these values have been found accounted and accordingly, taxable turnover and tax component as tax collected eligible for exemption were declared in the returns. The AA observed that segregation of total/gross value of the goods sold into net value of goods sold and tax component for the purpose of accounting and declaration in the return did not satisfy the requirement of law in regard to issuance of tax invoices and claim of exemption in accordance with Rule 3(2)(h) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, 'Rules'). Deduction claimed on the above basis in regard to collection of tax was disallowed due to which this component got merged into the total/gross value of goods sold which eventually became taxable turnover which was assessed to tax. The net result was increase of the taxable turnover and liability of tax. On this basis, reassessments were concluded. As there was creation of additional tax liability for the above reason, penalty under Section 72(2) and...
To continue reading
Request your trial