ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., is before us in this Revision petition raising the following questions of law on the following facts: 1) Whether, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order-dated 27.2.2004 of the JCCT (Appeals), Bangalore City Division-I, Bangalore. 2) Whether, the Hon"ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that entry tax at 2% on the value of electrical spare parts purchased for Thermal Generating Sets for Captive Generation of Power is leviable, treating the same as machinery. 3) Whether entry tax @ 2% has been levied without authority of law on the value of Cement bags brought from outside the State of Karnataka between 1.4.1997 and 6.1.1998 and subsequently sold in the state of Karnataka. 4) Any other question of law this Hon"ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is covered by the Karnataka Sales Tax Laws. It is a dealer engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of cement in the State of Karnataka. THE Assessing authority DCCT (Assts-11) Fast Track, Bangalore concluded the assessment order for the assessment year 1997-98 levying tax, among others on the following: a) Tax at 2% on the value of electrical spare parts valued at Rs.17,34,924/- purchased for THErmal Generating Sets and Diesel Generating Sets for Captive Generation of Power, has been wrongly levied entry tax, treating the same as machinery. THE electrical spare parts cannot be classified as machinery under the notification dated 23.9.1998 and 7.1.1998. b) Tax @ 2% has been wrongly levied on the value of Cement bags of Rs.5,34,87,275/- brought from outside the State of Karnataka for sale between 1.4.1997 to 6.1.1998 and sold in the state of Karnataka, which was not liable to entry tax in view of the decision of the Hon"ble High Court of Karnataka.

(3.) PER contra, Smt. Sujatha, learned Government Advocate says that in the light of the specific entry available in terms of Entry 52, the authorities are right in levying tax under Entry 52. She says that Entry 28 is not available to the petitioner.