HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REP Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ASSESSMENTS 11 FAST TRACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R. V. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material on record. Sri R. V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press the main relief regarding striking down of Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as substituted by karnataka Act No. 5 of 2002 as being violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 301 and 304 (b) of the constitution of India. The said submission is recorded. Hence, I proceed to pass the orders on the other reliefs claimed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Public Limited Company, carrying on business of manufacture, sales and distribution of petroleum products and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("hereinafter referred to as "the Act' for short ). The petitioner-Company is a Government of India enterprise and the President of India holds 51. 01% of the total number of shares. As the petitioner has no refinery in the State of Karnataka, it either purchases petroleum products from other oil companies in the State of Karnataka or receives by way of inward stock transfer from its refineries located outside the State, or it imports from outside the country. In the case of hand, the petitioner had purchased the petroleum products viz. , furnace oil and bitumin from Mangalore Refinery and Petro Chemicals Limited ('mrpl' for i short) and sold to other oil companies such as Indian Oil Corporation Limited (1ocl), Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), and Indo-Burma Petroleum Company (IBP) in the State of Karnataka.

(3.) BY the order Annexure-A dated 29. 7. 2004, the reassessment of taxes was done under Section 12-A of the Act and consequently, petitioner was levied tax payable under Section 6-B of the act which was not levied in the earlier order of assessment. Subsequently, the order at annexure-B came to be passed against the petitioner levying penalty under Section 12-A (1-A) of the Act. In the meanwhile the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Int), on inspection of the premises of the petitioner, seized certain books of accounts, records, documents, and after forming an opinion, issued the show cause notice dated 30-6-2004 to the effect that the petitioner was liable for payment of tax under Section 6-B of the Act on the inter-company oil sales effected by the petitioner for the assessment year 2003-04. Objections were filed by the petitioner for the same. Thereafter, by overruling the objections filed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent confirmed the proposals proposed in the show cause notice dated 30. 6. 2004 by passing an order dated 5. 8. 2004 under Section 28 (6) of the Act as per Annexure-C. The demand notice was also issued in Form No. 6 dated 6. 8. 2004 against the petitioner as per annexure-D to the writ petition. These Annexures-'a' to 'd' are called in question in this writ petition.