LAWS(ST)-2013-6-1

HCL COMNET LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On June 21, 2013
HCL Comnet Limited Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 12 appeals filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act') against the common appellate order passed by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals -5), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Authority' - - 'FAA'), in VAT AP Nos. 2566A to 2566L/2010 -11, dated 31 -5 -2012 dismissing the appeals filed against the reassessment orders passed by the DCCT (Audit -51), DVO -V, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'AA') for the tax periods April 2006, May 2006, June 2006, July 2006, August 2006, September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, February 2007 and March 2007 which includes levy of penalty and interest under the Act. The facts and the disputed issues are common to all the appeals. The appeals therefore are clubbed together and are heard the disposed of by this common judgment. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these twelve appeals they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) GROUNDS of appeal of the case urged by the appellant are as follows:

(3.) SRI Udayan Choksi, Counsel for the appellant appeared and argued the appeals. Grounds urged in the appeal memorandum were reiterated. He argued that the appellant is not a manufacturer, but only a trader. Further, there were no sufficient grounds to reopen the case under Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act. In addition the products should be treated VSAT on parts in accordance with the HSN. He also reiterated that the goods dealt by the appellant has to be classified under Entry 53 of Schedule III and as per Notification No. FD 116 CSL 2006(9), dated 31 -3 -2006 (with effect from 1 -4 -2006) as well as Notification No. FD 116 CSL 2006(16), dated 6 -4 -2006 (with effect from 6 -4 -2006). He also argued that the turnover of Rs. 11,19,05,936/ - was treated at higher rate, but inclusive of sales of Electronic goods. He urged to set aside the orders including the penalty orders of the authorities below.