LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-275

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UNITED TRADING COMPANY

Decided On April 30, 2014
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
UNITED TRADING COMPANY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE sales tax revision petitions, directed against the order dated 19 -1 -2011 rendered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'KAT') in STA Nos. 1159 to 1182 of 2009 filed by the respondent -assessee, were allowed partly. The appeals before the KAT, directed against the order dated 4 -2 -2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) (for short, the 'Appellate Authority') in Appeal Nos. KVAT/AP/109 and 110/2008 -09 filed by the respondent -assessee, were dismissed. The appeals before the Appellate Authority were directed against the order of reassessment under Section 39(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'Act'), dated 31 -10 -2008 passed by the Assessing Authority. Mr. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner -State, at the out set, invited our attention to the two orders of this Court dated 2 -9 -2013 passed in STRP Nos. 241 of 2011 and 53 to 67 of 2012 (Indian Rayon and Industries Limited (now known as Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited), Bangalore v. State of Karnataka : 2013 (77) Kar. L.J. 293 (HC) (DB)) and dated 5 -2 -2014 passed in STA Nos. 506 and 507 of 2011 (Mahadevi Stores, Somwarpet, Tilakwadi, Belgaum v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone -1, Bangalore and Others : 2014 (78) Kar. L.J. 385 (HC) (DB) : (2014) 69 VST 359 (Kar.) (DB)), and submitted that both the questions of law raised in these revisions petitions for our consideration are squarely covered by the said orders and they deserve to be answered in favour of the petitioner and against the assessee. Having confronted with this, learned Counsel for the respondent -assessee fairly conceded that both the questions, as raised in these revision petitions, are covered by the said orders and they may be answered in favour of the petitioner and against the assessee. The questions raised in these revision petitions read thus:

(2.) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is mandatory on the part of the registered dealer to show the rate of tax or the amount of tax collected on the tax invoice separately and then to claim deduction to arrive at the taxable turnover -