2009 (6) TMI 958 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Deduction towards labour charges claim disallowed - Held that - The honourable Tribunal and revisional authority are right in disallowing the deductions claimed by the petitioner as a works contractor in view of rule 6(4)(m) of the KST Rules and the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley 1992 (11) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Questions of law framed by the petitioner do not arise for consideration as the impugned judgment and review order is based on facts and law and therefore we answer the same against the petitioner as the Appellate Tribunal has granted the reliefs to the petitioner after noticing the fact that not giving deductions of ₹ 3,96,826.72 paid by him towards labour charges in which as per the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra, the assessing authority has to examine the claim of the petitioner including the claim of ₹ 9,22,611.46 said to have paid towards the labour charges. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court issued an order in 2009 regarding an appeal filed by an unsuccessful assessee before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the assessing authority to re-examine the petitioner's claim for deduction of labor charges and to re-compute the taxable turnover. A review petition was filed challenging the Tribunal's order, which was rejected. The petitioner then filed a revision petition, raising questions of law regarding the deductions claimed by the petitioner as a works contractor and the failure to consider various deductions entitled under the KST Rules. The Court examined the findings and reasons of the revisional authority and the Tribunal and concluded that the questions of law raised by the petitioner did not arise for consideration. The Tribunal had already examined the claims made by the petitioner and found no grounds for interference with the review order or the judgment passed in the appeal. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that no merit was found in the case to answer the questions of law raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was not awarded any costs.