Sales Tax Appeal No. 2697 of 2012. Case: National Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Bellary District Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal No. 2697 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri T.N. Keshava Murthy, Advocate and For Respondent: Sri B. Vasanthkumar, State Representative |
| Judges | S.L. Subramanya, CTM and Basavaraj S. Sappanna Var, DJM |
| Issue | Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 - Sections 5(4), 5(5), 5(6) and 7; Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Rules, 1979 - Rules 8, Proviso and 9(2); Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 34(4) |
| Citation | 2013 (76) KarLJ 585 |
| Judgement Date | June 24, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
S.L. Subramanya, CTM, (At Bangalore)
-
This appeal is filed under Section 14(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (for short, the 'Act') against the appeal Order No. KTEG.AP.03/2012-13, dated 29-9-2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 passed under Section 13(5) of the Act by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Davanagere Division, Davanagere (for brevity 'FAA') by which he modified the assessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (A and R), Bellary (for short, 'AA') on 6-8-2012 and accordingly, appeal was allowed partly.
-
The facts are these:
The appellant, a Government of India Enterprises, is engaged in the business of mining and sale of iron ore. It is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'VAT Act'). It is borne on the files of Local VAT Officer, Hospet, Bellary District. Consolidated returns prescribed by Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 have been filed together with tax payable under VAT Act, Central Sales Tax Act, 19.56 and Entry Tax.
-
Assessment under Section 5(4) of the Act was being concluded on 6-8-2012 by the AA after verification of books of accounts and evidence with reference to the turnovers declared under the Act. The AA observed that annual return in Form 5 has not been filed and thereby assessment to the best of his judgment was concluded. He also levied interest under Section 7(2) of the Act.
-
The matter of assessment concluded by AA which brought additional liability of tax and interest was carried in appeal before FAA. Ground of limitation in conclusion of assessment within the time-limit specified under Section 5(6) was raised before him. The FAA rejected the above ground by citing Rule 9 of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Rules, 1979. In regard to levy of tax on earthmovers and their spares and parts, FAA observed that these goods are machinery and parts liable to tax. The contention of these goods being falling under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with reference to Section 4-B of the Act and treating these goods as goods falling under the above Act as per the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was also rejected on the ground of failure to produce proof of earthmovers being liable for registration or assignment of mark under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Levy of interest under Section 7(2) of the Act was upheld on the ground that the turnovers liable to tax as per the assessment order passed by the AA had not been declared and further the tax due on such turnovers was not being discharged. However, he recomputed the turnovers and the tax liability as well as interest under Section 7(2) of the Act by eliminating the value of non-schedule goods. Consequently, he modified the assessment passed by AA due to which he allowed the appeal partly.
-
We have heard the learned Counsel for appellant and State Representative. We have verified the lower Court records. Written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant and the respondent by the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned State Representative have been perused by us. The learned Counsels for the respective parties have reiterated the written arguments placed before us and have defended their respective cases. The State Representative has justified the orders of lower Courts and accordingly he has requested to dismiss the appeal. The Counsel for the appellant requested to allow the appeal on the grounds raised.
-
The grounds raised by 'tile appellant and its counsel are the following:
(a) With reference to law, annual return prescribed for the purpose of the Act in declaration of the turnovers and tax liability, is Form VAT 115 though deleted from the statute book for the purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial