Sales Tax (Review) Nos. 1 to 27 of 2013. Case: State of Karnataka Vs Levis Strauss India Private Limited, Bangalore. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax (Review) Nos. 1 to 27 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Sri B. Vasantha Kumar, State Representative |
| Judges | S.L. Subramanya, CTM and Basa Varaj S. Sappanna Var, DJM |
| Issue | Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 63(8); Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 37(2) |
| Citation | 2013 (76) KarLJ 576 |
| Judgement Date | July 01, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Order:
S.L. Subramanya, CTM
-
These 27 review petitions have been filed as per Section 63(8)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'Act') for the tax periods wherever applicable in the financial years from April 2005 to March 2009 by which review of the common judgment (for short, 'judgment') delivered on 17-10-2012 (Levi Strauss India Private Limited, Bangalore v State of Karnataka, 2013(75) KarLJ 213 (Tri.) (DB)) in the case of the respondent is sought by this Bench of the Tribunal.
-
The lower authorities namely Assessing Authority (for short, 'AA') and First Appellate Authority (for short, 'FAA') had passed common orders for the tax periods involved in the appeals filed before this Tribunal in STA Nos. 2030 to 2056 of 2010. Consequent to the above reason of passing common assessment order for the impugned tax periods, it was observed in the judgment that mandatory principle of law prescribed under Rule 37(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, 'Rules') was not complied with as the above provision is mandatory requiring the AA to pass separate assessment order on the tax period basis. Rule 37(2) of the Rules prescribes that the tax period shall be one calendar month. As this mandatory principle of law was not complied with by AA and further by FAA while passing respective orders by them, the common orders passed by them were set aside and remanded for fresh disposal by setting forth suitable directions by this Tribunal in the judgment delivered. Relevant finding recorded in para 6/page 4 of the judgment is as under:
"Hence, from our above findings, we unhesitatingly hold that both the orders passed by AA and FAA, which are not unconformity with the mandatory provisions of Rule 37(2) of KVAT Rules, 2005, are not sustainable under law and as such, the matters need to be remanded back to AA with a direction to him to assess the tax period in the light of the provisions of Rule 37(2) of KVAT Rules, 2005. Hence, we answer Point No. 1 in the affirmative".
The judgment of this Tribunal is now sought for review by the State of Karnataka represented by the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka ('petitioner' for short) through the State Representative of the Department of Commercial Taxes. The grounds for review are as under:
(a) The AA has in the common assessment order passed under Section 39(1) of the Act has provided computation of the turnovers and tax liability for each of the calendar month. The consequential levies under Section 72(2) and Section 36(1) have also been computed on the above said basis. The procedure of assessment adopted by AA do not either affect the Department of Commercial Taxes or the dealer (appellant). Hence, such procedure need not be termed as violation of the Rule 37(2) in the strict sense. The mistake in passing common assessment order is purely technical in nature which does not alter tax liability in any way.
(b) Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has clubbed twenty-four appeals relating to different tax periods from April 2007 to March 2009 and has passed common judgment on 28-3-2012 in STA Nos. 1666 to 1689 of 2011 in the case ofV3 Engineers Private Limited, Bangalore v State of Karnataka, 2012(73) KarLJ 555 (Tri.) (DB). It is observed in the above judgment by the Tribunal that though the AA has passed order for levy of tax, penalty and interest for twenty-four months, has furnished the details of taxable turnover and liabilities separately for each tax period due to which the AA has passed virtually twenty-four orders for levying tax and consequential penalty and interest. Accordingly, the appeals were clubbed and disposed of by common judgment by the Tribunal.
For the above reasons, review of the judgment is sought for by...
To continue reading
Request your trial