SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SAP INDIA SYSTEMS APPLICATION AND PRODUCTS IN DATA PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED) Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 18-3-2010 which is impugned at Annexure-E1 to the petition. By the said order, the Authority has issued an endorsement rejecting the request for rectification as made by the petitioner-assessee. Sri N. Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Harish and Company, for the petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that the authority was not justified in the manner in which the endorsement is issued. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the sale which has entirely taken place in Gujarat has been brought to the assessment by the authorities in Karnataka, which is not permissible in law. It is therefore contended that, if such amount were to be excluded, the tax liability of the petitioner would have been on the lower side. Since this was an error apparent insofar as the application of law, the authority was required to rectify the same in the impugned order.

(2.) Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would however seek to justify the said order by pointing out that, in any event, these were the issues which had been raised by the petitioner in the earlier batch of writ petitions wherein the petitioner was also a party in Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2008 and connected petitions, disposed of on 6-3-2009 (SAP India Private Limited, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and Others,2009 67 KarLJ 20). Against the said order, writ appeals were preferred by the petitioner herein in Writ Appeal Nos. 1012 to 1014 of 2009. The said writ appeals were also disposed of on 8-1-2010 relegating the petitioner herein to the alternative remedy of appeal. Since the sales in Gujarat as contended was also one of the issues in the said petitions an appeal was to be availed and not by rectification. In any event the petitioner cannot contend that the order of rectification is bad in law. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

(3.) Having considered the rival contentions, I have perused the order impugned in this petition. In that background, a perusal of the order passed in the earlier writ petitions and writ appeals mentioned above would in fact indicate that the petitioner herein had raised the issue with regard to the Gujarat sales also in the said writ petitions. This Court, after considering all the contentions, relegated the petitioner herein to file an appeal as contemplated under law. Subsequent thereto, the application for rectification was filed though an appeal was also filed. The present impugned order is passed in the rectification proceeding while the appeal is still pending consideration.