TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN STRP Nos. 3 to 10 of 2007 and 5 of 2006 the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'KAT') are under challenge, while the other cases are against the order of Authority for Advance Ruling. The appellants in sales tax appeals are against the proceedings of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 28 -9 -2006. So far as W.F. No. 12419 of 2009 is concerned, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the levy of resale tax levied in the assessment order dated 19 -1 -2007 and has also sought for a writ of mandamus directing that no resale tax could be levied under Section 6 -B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of structured cabling products in view of the Government notification dated 31 -3 -2001 and 30 -3 -2002. In all the revision petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 25 -10 -2005 and 23 -11 -2006 passed by the KAT, Bangalore. In all these matters the contention of the assessees is that they are dealing in the business of manufacture and sale of different parts of computers i.e., routers, structured cabling products or network cabling products, information outlets, jack panel, patch cords, optic fibre cables and all the products fall under the head of computer parts and they are peripherals. Therefore according to the assessees, the orders of the lower authorities including KAT and Entry 20 of Part 'C' of Second Schedule of the Act cannot be extended to include the products of the assessees and similarly the opinion of the said authorities that Entry 4 of Part 'E' of Second Schedule alone applies to the facts of the present case bringing the products of the appellant/revision petitioners/petitioners under the category of electronic goods, parts and accessories other than those falling under entry of the Schedule is erroneous. According to the revision petitioners, the redoing of the provisional assessment is erroneous and they cannot be taxed at a higher rate under Entry 4 of Part 'E' of the Second Schedule of the Act.

(2.) APPEALS came to be filed before the KAT against the orders of the appeals passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore. In the appeals before the Joint Commissioner, the provisional assessment orders under Section 28(6) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence -1) were challenged with reference to the assessment years 2001 to 2002, 2002 -2003, 2003 -2004 and 2004 -2005. Some appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were filed against the provisional assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CST Act') by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence -1). Although they were concerned with the provisional assessment orders passed both under the KST and CST Acts, as the common controversies were involved, the First Appellate Authority passed orders and the appeals before the KAT were also disposed of.

(3.) SECOND decision of the Advance Ruling Authority was by a majority decision dated 23 -12 -2005. Again the Commissioner resorted to the revisional powers and the order dated 28 -9 -2006 is impugned in the appeals.