1998 (9) TMI 605 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant aggrieved by common suo motu revisional order passed by respondent under section 22-A of Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
2. Appellant's job-work of printing and supplying materials subjected to reassessment for periods 1986-87 and 1989-90.
3. Assessing authority levied tax on amounts realized by appellant for job-work.
4. First appellate authority held appellant's case governed by section 5-B of the Act.
5. Appellant sought rectification under section 25-A, contending printing exempted from tax pre-April 1992.
6. Revisional authority initiated proceedings to set aside appellate order without considering rectification order.
7. Appellant objected to revisional proceedings, but objections overruled, and revisional order passed.
8. Appellant filed appeals against revisional order and sought condonation of delay.
9. Court found revisional order untenable as it overlooked Fifth Schedule entry exempting works contract pre-April 1992.
10. Appeals allowed, revisional authority's order set aside, and first appellate authority's order restored.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged a revisional order under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, contesting the reassessment of job-work for printing and supplying materials for the periods 1986-87 and 1989-90.
2. The assessing authority had levied tax on amounts realized by the appellant for job-work, leading to appeals before the first appellate authority.
3. The first appellate authority determined that the appellant's job-work fell under section 5-B of the Act, allowing a 30% reduction for labor charges in the tax calculation.
4. Following a rectification request under section 25-A, the first appellate authority exempted the receipts from sales tax pre-April 1992, leading to a revisional authority's attempt to set aside the appellate order.
5. The revisional authority's decision was challenged by the appellant, arguing that the order failed to consider the rectification made by the first appellate authority.
6. The court found the revisional order legally flawed as it disregarded the exemption under entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act, which exempted works contracts not specified in the Sixth Schedule pre-April 1992.
7. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the revisional authority's order and restoring the first appellate authority's decision.