MKV ENGINEERING Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four (4) appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'Act') contesting the common appeal orders dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals -2), Bangalore (for brevity as 'FAA') in Case VAT/AP Nos. 14 to 39/10 -11(14 to 27 and 27A to 39) for the tax periods of September 2005; March 2006; August 2006; October 2006; November 2006; December 2006; February 2007; March 2007; April 2007; May 2007; July 2007; September 2007 to March 2008; April 2008 to March 2009 (other than tax periods of July 2008 and August 2008) by which the FAA has allowed the 27 (twenty -seven) appeals in part and has given directions to recompute the penalty and interest also to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit -44), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'AA) by modifying the reassessment orders dated 6th January, 2010 concluded by the AA for the impugned tax periods. In pursuant to the directions given by the FAA, the AA has drawn proceedings to implement the said appellate order on 4th June, 2010. Aggrieved by this common appellate order, the appeals are filed before us by the appellant for the years 2005 -2006, 2006 -2007, 2007 -2008 and 2008 -2009. The appellant has not filed appeals tax period wise in view of the fact that the FAA has recomputed the taxable turnover for the year as a whole i.e., for the above mentioned financial years in his impugned appellate order. The appellant has confined these four appeals so far as penalty imposed under Section 72(2) and interest levied under Section 36 of the Act for the impugned financial years. The main ground is that neither the interest nor the penalty is levied or imposed tax period wise and also has assailed the directions given by the FAA to AA to recompute the penalty and interest. Against these appeals, the State has filed cross appeals which is also confined to the impugned financial years. In the cross appeals, the prayer is made to restore the orders of the AA. While filing the cross appeals, care is not taken to file 27 (twenty -seven) cross appeals when the prayer has been made to restore the orders of the AA for the above mentioned tax periods as cited supra in paragraph 1.

(2.) THE appellant being a works contractor has confined his grounds of appeals only with respect to the imposition of penalty and levy of interest. The procedural lapse on the part of the FAA for having computed the taxable turnover year as a whole is contested and also the directions given to the AA to recompute the penalty and interest.

(3.) THE appellant is represented by Sri C. Basavaiah, the Advocate. The learned Counsel is heard. However the Counsel for the appellant appeared on 21 -7 -2014 and made prayer to file vakalath against cross appeals as the appellant has made request to represent in cross appeals also. Apart from the same, the Counsel also filed application for advancement of the case. The same has been allowed by the Bench and the Counsel is heard on 22nd July, 2014 inspite of the case being reserved for orders on 23rd July, 2014. The Counsel is heard in respect of cross appeals also. The learned Counsel advanced the arguments submitting that the appellate order has been subjected to revision by the Additional Commissioner when the appeals were pending before this Tribunal which is not permissible.