Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 827 to 832 of 2012. Case: Technocon Builders, Bangalore Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Case NumberSales Tax Appeal Nos. 827 to 832 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Sri P.E. Umesh, Advocate and For Respondent: Sri B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative
JudgesS.L. Subramanya, CTM and Basa Varaj S. Sappanna Var, DJM
IssueKarnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 63-A(3)
Citation2013 (76) KarLJ 447
Judgement DateJune 05, 2013
CourtKarnataka Appellate Tribunal

Judgment:

S.L. Subramanya, CTM

  1. These six appeals filed under Section 63(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'Act') are directed against the common revision order passed under Section 63-A of the Act on 29-11-2011 for the tax periods from April, May, July, August, September and November 2005 by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VAT Division 1, Bangalore (for brevity, 'FRA') by which the assessment orders passed under Section 38(1) of the Act read with Rule 45(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, 'Rules'), on 28-12-2006 by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-13), DVO-1, Bangalore (for short, 'AA') were revised.

  2. On account of existence of similar facts and law, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

  3. Briefly, the facts are stated thus:

    The appellant, a proprietor, is a civil works contractor. He was assessed to tax for impugned tax periods in addition to other tax periods in the financial year of 2005-06 by AA. Exemption on labour and other like charges for Rs. 1,38,17,025/- for April 2005 which was claimed in the return was allowed as excess unutilised deduction on the above ground available for March 2005 and accordingly, it was carried forward to April 2005.

  4. FRA noticed from the verification of the assessment order for April 2005 that excess carry forward of labour and other like charges for the above amount from March 2005 was not supported by any provisions under the Act. He found that there was no facilitation provision to accommodate unutilised excess deduction on account of labour and other like charges under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Rules, 1957 (for short, 'Sales Tax Act') as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. Consequently, the FRA disallowed the deduction towards labour and other like charges from March 2005 which was carried forward for April 200.5. However, he partly allowed the above deduction in the impugned tax periods for Rs. 49,42,234. Rest of the amount of Rs.' 88,74,971/- was disallowed by spreading the amount across proportionately for the impugned tax periods. Consequent to this reason, liability of tax was also increased. Penalty under Section 72(2) and interest under Section 36 were imposed as consequential levies. Accordingly, common revision order was passed.

  5. The appellant who is before us in the present appeals has questioned the validity of the revision order passed by FRA on the following grounds:

    (a) The assessments records were submitted by the AA on 26-8-2009 vide Letter No...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT