KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal declining to grant the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 6 -B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 2000 -2001 and 2001 -2002 though the said benefit was granted for the assessment year 2002 -2003. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the works contract of construction of multistoried apartments. The business premises of the assessee was inspected. During the course of inspection, the inspecting authorities seized certain documents, thereafter processed and verified. The assessment orders were concluded under Sections 12(3) and 18(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on 18 -12 -2007 for the assessment year 2000 -2001 and on 29 -12 -2007 for the year 2001 -2002. The assessee has disputed the levy of turnover tax for the assessment years 2000 -2001 and 2001 -2002. Therefore, he has preferred appeals to the First Appellate Authority challenging the said levy. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals confirming the order of the Assessing Authority. The assessee preferred the second appeals to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that levy of resale tax was introduced with effect from 1 -4 -2002 as a prelude to the introduction of Value Added Tax system, in order to prepare the dealers for a smooth transition to Value Added Tax. Then, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of MFAR Constructions Limited, Bangalore v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka), Bangalore, 2011 (70) Kar. L.J. 367 (HC) (DB), held that, in that judgment the High Court was not dealing with the issue pertaining to turnover tax as it existed prior to 1 -4 -2002. Therefore, it extended the benefit of Section 6B, proviso, clause (x) with effect from 1 -4 -2002 and for the earlier two years, the benefit was denied. The review petitions filed before the Tribunal questioning the said order were also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petitions are filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the assessee assailing the impugned order contends that though Section 6 -B was substituted by Act No. 5 of 2002 which came into effect from 1 -4 -2002, the law prior to the said amendment also provided for exemption from payment of tax if the goods falls within clause (xiv) of the proviso to Section 6 -B, which effect has not been noticed by the Tribunal and therefore, he submits that even in respect of assessment years 2000 -2001 and 2001 -2002, the assessee is entitled to the benefit. Further, he contended that when once the imposition of resale tax for the year 2002 -2003 was set aside, the Tribunal committed a serious error in remitting the matter to the Assessing Authority for recomputation of the tax and that portion of the order also requires to be set aside.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the points that arise for our consideration is: