(1.) THESE appeal petitions are filed under Section 18A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the 'CST Act' or 'Act') read with Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'KVAT Act') and Rule 150 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 contesting the orders dated 24th April, 2014 of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit and Recovery -5), DVO, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessing Authority' or for brevity 'AA') passed under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act. The appellant has moved stay application which is designated as I.A. No. I under Section 18A(5) of the CST Act. The appeal petitions were heard on the maintainability of the appeal petitions since the AA has passed the orders under Section 9(2) of CST Act read with Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Initially, the appellant -company has been assessed under Section 9(2) of the CST Act by orders dated 16th March, 2012 allowing exemption on the turnover of stock transfer effected to various branches located outside the State supported by statutory declarations in Form 'F' as per Rule 12(5) of Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The AA has re -opened the assessment by invoking Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act to reassess the appellant's transactions of stock transfers as inter -State sales. Accordingly, the order is passed under Section 9(2) of CST Act read with Section 39(2) of KVAT Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed these appeal petitions before this Tribunal along with 'Stay Application' under Section 18A(5) of the CST Act.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Shivadass has been heard on both maintainability of the petitions and also on the prayer for stay.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the State Representative is also heard on both maintainability and stay. The learned State Representative contended that the appeal petitions are maintainable since this Tribunal is the highest Appellate Authority. However, so far as stay is concerned, the learned State Representative highlighted the fact that the stay if any granted shall cover the portion of interest and penalty also. As a rejoinder to the arguments of the State Representative, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 18A(5) of the Act, specifically uses the expression, the portion of tax as assessed, there is no need to consider the interest and penalty component demanded by the AA while deciding the stay application.