ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. R. RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 26 -12 -2006 in STA No. 126/2004 which appeal was preferred by the petitioner -assessee under Section 22(1) of the KST Act, 1957 challenging the order dated 27 -10 -2003 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) City Division II, Bangalore in CST A.P. No. 12/2003 -04 wherein the Joint Commissioner had dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956 for the year 2000 01.

(2.) AT the time of admission the matter was admitted to answer the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that assessing authority can invoke powers vested Under Section 18AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, in order to forfeit the excess tax paid under Central Sales Tax Act, pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Act, 1956?

(3.) MR . Parameswara, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the authorities have wrongly held that the assessee himself has filed the revised return only to enrich himself in an unjustified manner. According to him the assessee had sold the goods manufactured by it inclusive of tax. Therefore the assessee was entitled for filing a revised assessment highlighting the prices of the accessories sold by the petitioner to its customers. In support of his submission he has relied upon two judgments: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2002(49) RLT (1) SC, and (ii) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., etc. Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, AIR 1971 SC 2216 . Relying upon these two judgments he contends that the assessee is entitled to quote price of his choice and that the amount collected by him cannot be treated as towards tax. He further contends that the Tribunal as well as the other authorities did not consider that the assessee had inherent power to file revised return and was entitled to collect additional extra tax paid by the assessee and he can seek for refund of the excess tax. Under the circumstances, he requested the Court to allow the revision petition answering the question of law in favour of the assessee and to direct the revenue to refund the excess tax paid by the assessee.