WIPRO LIMITED INFOTECH GROUP REP. BY ITS REGIONAL FINANCE MANAGER SRI B.C. SHASHIDHARA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (RECOVERY-I)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short. KST Act], has filed the petition under Section 23(1) of the KST Act.

(2.) THE petitioner in its return indicated certain amount that had been collected by way of tax in respect, of merchandise sold by the petitioner -dealer at a particular rate and also remitted the amount of tax as indicated in the return. It was subsequently noticed that for the relevant period, the particular product sold by the petitioner -dealer was exempt from levy of tax, except for one or two months of the entire period, and in respect of rest of the period it was at nil rate, whereas the tax, it appeals, had been indicated to have been collected at 4% and on such premise, remitted the tax component along with the returns.

(3.) THE dealer, it appears, came up with an ingenious explanation that though the periodical returns in fact did show the amount to be as tax component of the price amount collected from the purchasers, nevertheless, the transaction with the purchasers was one of fixing a price as lump sum amount in respect of the product sold and that no part of the price was collected by way of tax and therefore the dealer in fact had never paid any amount from out of the sate price by way of tax nor the dealer had collected the part of the amount though shown as tax collected in the return filed as by way of tax and therefore submitted that the amount was not liable for forfeiture, as the amount had not in fact been collected by way of tax from the customers. This explanation did not find favour with the assessing officer.