GEETHA D. RAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.T.A. NO. 25 of 2009 relates to the assessment year 2002-03 whereas S.T.A. No. 26 of 2009 relates to the assessment year 2003-04 in respect of the same, assessee who is the appellant before us. She has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his revisional jurisdiction under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessee is an individual registered under the Act and is engaged in the business of civil contract work. She filed her monthly return in the prescribed form and also filed annual returns., During the year of assessment, she has assigned a part of the works contract to another registered dealer M/s. Paramount Constructions who is also registered under the Act. He also has filed regular monthly and yearly accounts and discharged the tax liabilities. The total value of the sub-contract is Rs. 65,50,005. The subcontractor had paid tax under the Act for the said turnover and she was also assessed on that basis. Correspondingly, the assessee was given the benefit of reduction in respect of the said turnover and assessment order was also passed. Subsequently, invoking the powers conferred under section 12A of the Act, a show-cause notice was also issued calling upon her to show cause as to why the said exemption should not be withdrawn and proposing to levy resale tax under section 6B of the Act. The assessee contested the said position. Not being satisfied with the reply, the assessing authority proceeded to revise the earlier order and imposed resale tax. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), who allowed the appeal and set aside the imposition of resale tax. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes invoked the power conferred on him under section 22A(1) of the Act and initiated proceedings for revision of the said order. After hearing the parties, he has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and restored the order passed by the assessing authority holding that the assessee is liable to pay resale tax under section 6B of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is before this court.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the assessee, relying on the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd., 2008 17 VST 1 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore,2009 67 KarLJ 125, contended that there cannot be a multiple sale and consequently, there cannot be levy of tax on the same components, one as a sale and another as a resale and therefore, submits that the order passed by the revisional authority is contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and requires to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned order.