ALI SINGHANIA BULK CARRIERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, dated August 31, 2005, wherein the two appeals filed by the appellant herein challenging the assessment order passed under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with rule 18(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 for the period ending March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2004 determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 2,79,95,630 and Rs. 2,79,95,630 and Rs. 5,71,54,812 and Rs. 5,71,54,812, respectively declared total taxable turnover as nil respectively for both the periods was concluded by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments-4), Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, by order dated March 14, 2006 while dismissing the appeal. The material facts for deciding the question of law that arises for determination in this appeal are as follows:

(2.) The appellate authority after considering the contents of the agreement and the fact; that the vehicle concrete mix transport vehicle which was placed at the disposal of M/s. Grasim Industries was under the effective control of the first party M/s. Grasim Industries and the vehicles were in possession of M/s. Grasim Industries and assessee had lost the possession of the said vehicles following the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, 1993 88 STC 357, the appellate authority confirmed the order of assessment including imposition of penalty. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate authority, two appeals were preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 266 and 267 of 2006.

(3.) The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by order dated October 31, 2008 dismissed both the appeals confirming the order passed by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal this revision is filed by the assessee and prayer in this revision is restricted to S.T.A. No. 266 of 2006 and the assessee-petitioner has accepted the order passed in S.T.A. No. 267 of 2006 dated October 30, 2008 wherein order was passed holding that the transaction under the agreement dated October 11, 2002 is taxable under section 5C of the Act.