2009 (4) TMI 893 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had material to hold that there is a transfer of property in goods to the petitioner from the printer and also from the petitioner to the customer so as to warrant a conclusion that there are two sales? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner carries on business and that there is no dispute about the fact? Held that - The findings have been affirmed by the first appellate authority with reference to the legal contentions urged by the Tribunal with reference to the findings challenged in the appeals before the Second Appellate Tribunal, which is the second appellate authority with reference to the same at paragraph No. 11, which, after recording its reasons has further concurred with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the first appellate authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the points answered by the Tribunal are vitiated on account of the erroneous finding for want of legal evidence on record. We are in respectful agreement with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority as the same is based on materials, the accounts books and various other materials referred to in the order of the assessing officer by the Intelligence Wing of the Sales Tax Department and as the same has been rightly concurred with by the KAT, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the same. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of Gopala Gowda v. Arali Nagaraj, JJ., reviewed a sales tax revision petition regarding the liability of the petitioner for turnover tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The key issues revolved around whether the petitioner was engaged in business activities related to advertising and printing, and thus subject to turnover tax. The petitioner argued that they were a service-oriented advertising agency and not a dealer under the Act, as they provided services to customers, not goods. The assessing authority disagreed, finding evidence that the petitioner was indeed a dealer, based on transactions with printers and customers. The court upheld the assessing authority's findings, concluding that the petitioner was liable for sales tax on total turnover. The Second Appellate Tribunal affirmed this decision, and the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's rulings.