Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 370 to 378 of 2011. Case: Vajreshwari Traders, Apmc Yard, Gadag Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 370 to 378 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Smt. Shalini Patil, Advocate for Appellant and For the Respondent: Sti B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative for Respondent |
| Judges | Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, DJM and P. Puttaraju, CTM |
| Issue | Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 11 (a)(5), 11(b), 14; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 6-A(1); Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 - Rule 12(5) |
| Citation | 2013 (77) KarLJ 338 |
| Judgement Date | August 08, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
P. Puttaraju, CTM
1. These nine (09) appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') contesting the appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Authority' or 'FAA' for short) in Case Nos. VAT/AP-282 to 291/2008-2009, dated 26th November, 2010 for the tax periods of September 2005, October 2005, March 2006, September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, September 2007, October 2007 and November 2007. The FAA has been conferred with additional jurisdiction by the Commissioner on appeal files with respect to Dharwad Division, Hubli and hence the FAA has decided these appeals. While passing the appellate order, the FAA has upheld the reassessment orders concluded by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-I), Hubli (for brevity 'the AA') issued on 30th May, 2008.
2. There is delay in filing the appeals by one day for which application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is filed along with the affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. The appeals are admitted after examining the application and condoning the delay in filing the appeals.
3. The brief facts and grounds leading to these appeals are as under:
(i) The appellant is a registered dealer borne on the records of Local VAT Office (LVO)-350, Gadag registered under the Act and CST Act.
(ii) The appellant is engaged in trading of sunflower seeds, groundnut seeds within the State and also in the course of inter-State trade.
(iii) Apart from the trading activity, the appellant also acts as purchasing commission agent on behalf of non-resident principals.
(iv) The AA has concluded separate orders for each tax period wherein he has disallowed the input tax credit on the purchases effected by the appellant on behalf of the non-resident principals as per Section 11 of the Act. Against this, the appeals have been preferred which have been disposed of by the FAA framing only one legal issue which is involved whether the AA is correct in disallowing the IPT credit on purchases effected on behalf of non-resident principals. The FAA has concurred with the findings of the AA and accordingly the appeals have been dismissed and hence the present appeals are before us.
(v) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the transactions...
To continue reading
Request your trial