PANNA STONES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'KVAT Act') challenging the appeal orders concluded by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals -II), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Authority' or for short 'FAA') in case No. VAT.AP.656/09 -10 on 5 -1 -2010 pertaining to the tax period of March 2007 and in case Nos. VAT.AP.1041 to 1046/09 -10 on 5 -3 -2010 pertaining to the tax periods of April 2007 to September 2007. The FAA has partly modified the reassessment orders concluded under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit -3), DVO, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessing Authority' or 'AA' for short) vide reassessment orders dated 7 -9 -2009 and 28 -10 -2009 for the tax period of March 2007 and for the tax periods of April 2007 to September 2007 respectively. The common question of law and facts are involved in these seven appeals and hence clubbed together and disposed off by this common judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case in brief are as follows. - -

(3.) ON the above grounds, the appellant prays to set aside the reassessment orders passed under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the AA and the appellate order of the FAA upholding the addition of sales suppression for the impugned tax periods of March 2007 to September 2007. Further, the prayer is made to delete the penalty and interest levied consequent to setting aside of the lower authorities orders. The learned Counsel for the appellant -Sri M. Thirumalesh, Advocate reiterated the grounds of appeals and urged to set aside the impugned orders of the FAA and also that of AA. The learned Counsel by a separate memo has submitted the copies of the judgments which have been referred in the grounds which includes the decisions rendered by this Tribunal in this aspect. The State Representative defended the impugned orders of the FAA and AA and admitted the fact that the inter -State purchase invoices which support the alleged purchases of the appellant are not available and it is only based on VAT -SOFT entries, the impugned orders are concluded. But the State Representative submitted that while making entry only when purchase invoices are present, then only the Check -post Authorities make the relevant entries in VAT -SOFT. On this basis, the State Representative submits that the VAT -SOFT data is genuine and the impugned order of the FAA partly modifying the reassessment orders is correct.