2009 (3) TMI 964 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the appellant is entitled to ask for remand of the matter to the assessing authority by setting aside the orders under annexure A and all other previous orders of the authorities under the Sales Tax Act? Held that - As already stated when appellant/assessee did not choose to file the appeal under section 22 of the Act challenging annexure B he could not have come before this court challenging the same. The remedy open to him was before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Now we have to consider and restrict our order to annexures A and C where there was a fair opportunity available to the appellant/assessee and the reduction of 20 per cent from 30 per cent was in accordance with the Rules contemplated under the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. As stated above the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax in his orders at annexure A has referred to all the provisions of law both the sections and the Rules as referred to above and has clearly stated how the deduction of labour and other like charges have to be deducted from the turnover. Viewed from any angle we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the appellant/assessee seeking for remand of the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment. The order at annexure A is in total conformity with the provisions of law. There is no scope for any interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court delivered a judgment in 2009, challenging the orders of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The appellant, a registered contractor, disputed the deduction of labour and other charges at 30%, which was reduced to 20% under the impugned order. The appellant argued that the authorities did not consider his objections and expenses reflected in the account books. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, including sections 21, 22, 24, and 25A, as well as Rules 6(4)(m) and (n). It considered whether the appellant was entitled to a remand of the matter. The court noted that the appellant dealt with electrical contracts, not civil contracts, and voluntarily filed revised returns seeking deductions. The Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner passed orders restricting deductions to 30% and 20%, respectively. The court found that the appellant did not challenge the Joint Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal, stating that the order at annexure A was in conformity with the law. The appellant was advised to explore other legal options if available.