Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 2140 to 2145 of 2011. Case: Prakash T. Mali Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 2140 to 2145 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: For the Appellant: Sri Arvind B. Udoshi, Tax Consultant 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 63, 63-A, 15(1)(b), 39(1) |
| Citation | 2013 (77) KarLJ 253 |
| Judgement Date | August 21, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
P. Puttaraju, CTM
-
These six (06) appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') contesting the common revision orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), VAT Division, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'First Revisional Authority or 'FAA' for short) in Case Nos. JCCT/Admn/DVO/SMR-15(a) and (b)/2010-11, dated 27th June, 2011 for the tax periods from April 2007 to March 2008 and April 2008 to March 2009 under Section 63-A of the Act. The FRA has revised the common reassessment orders dated 21st October, 2010 and 10th November, 2010 for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 concluded under Section 39(1) of the Act concluded by the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit-2), Belgaum (for brevity, the 'AA') under Section 39(1) read with Section 15(l)(b) of the Act.
-
There is delay in filing the appeal by 24 days which has been condoned while admitting the appeal on 25-11-2011 based on the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit.
-
The brief facts and grounds leading to these appeals are as under:
(i) The appellant is a civil works contractor borne on the records of VAT Sub-Office (VSO-382), Athani.
(ii) The AA has concluded reassessment for the tax periods of September 2007 to March 2008 and January 2009 and February 2009. While doing so, the AA has observed that the appellant is carrying the activity of construction of buildings along with pipeline work. The AA has allowed the labour and like charges without discussing on the same.
(iii) The FRA solely on this ground has revised the reassessment orders of the AA by restricting the labour and like charges at 25% as per the table appended to Rule 3(2)(m) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.
(iv) Both FRA and AA have levied tax on works contract at 12.5% only and thus there is no dispute so far as the rate of tax is concerned. The FRA is of the opinion that the works carried by the appellant falls under S1. No. 14 of the Table under Rule 3(2)(m) of KVAT Rules. The FRA does not mention the entry number under which the works contract has to be subjected to tax as per Section 4(1)(c) of the Act read with Sixth Schedule of the Act.
-
Aggrieved by the said revision orders of the FRA, the present appeals are preferred confining to the tax periods of September 2007, October 2007, November 2007, February 2008, January 2009 and February 2009. The learned Counsel for the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial