S G PHADKE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is presented under Section 23 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, against the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing its appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Belgaum, dismissing its appeal against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer II Circle, Belgaum.

(2.) The facts of the case, in the brief,are these :- The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. The assessment year is 1979-80. During the assessment year the assessee had purchased rubber meant to be used for retreading of tyres. The purchase price of the rubber purchased during the year by the assessee was Rs. 22,200/- . The Assessing Authority made an assessment under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Assessing Authority found that the rubber purchased by the assessee was utilised for the retreading of the tyres of its customers. Rubber materials were purchased both from outside the State and within the State. On verification, the Assessing Authority found that the rubber purchased within the State was worth Rs. 22,101.85. It was also found that the purchase was from M/s. Tread Lines, Belgaum, which was an unregistered dealer. On the ground that the rubber was purchased under the circumstances under which no tax was leviable and the same was used for the purpose of retreading of tyres i.e., otherwise than by manufacture or sale, Section 6 of the Act was attracted and therefore the petitioner was liable to pay tax. Accordingly, by his order dated 15-11-1980 the Assessing Authority imposed tax at the rate of 12% on the purchase price of the rubber of Rs. 22,200/-. Questioning the legality of the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Belgaum.

(3.) In the appeal the main contentionof the petitioner was that Section 6 was not at all attracted to this case, for the reason that thought M/s. Tread Lines, Belgaum, from whom the petitioner purchased rubber was an unregistered dealer, actually the rubber had suffered tax at his hands and therefore the petitioner was not liable to pay tax. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the goods had suffered tax at the hands of M/s. Tread Lines, Belgaum. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner took the matter in second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The same ground was urged in the second appeal. The second Appellate Authority also rejected the contention of the petitioner that the rubber had suffered tax at the hands of M/s. Tread Lines, Belgaum, from whom the petitioner had purchased on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that the rubber had suffered tax at the hands of M/s. Tread Lines, Belgaum. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this revision petition.