9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 686 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhetehr the exemption granted is only for oiled cake and not for de-oiled cake? Held that -The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that oiled and de-oiled cake are one and the same for various reasons as contended is wholly unsustainable. It cannot be contended that both the items oiled and de-oiled cake are one and the same especially in view of the fact that both the commodities are different and hence we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee. the petition is allowed. The order dated May 15 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 335 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the first appellate authority dated November 30 2006 in No. CST. AP. 1/2006-07 is hereby restored the petition is allowed. The order dated May 15 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 335 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the first appellate authority dated November 30 2006 in No. CST. AP. 1/2006-07 is hereby restored
Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification reducing tax rate for oiled cake. 2. Distinction between oiled cake and de-oiled cake for tax purposes. 3. Correct application of notification by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Issue 1: Interpretation of notification reducing tax rate for oiled cake The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of a notification issued by the State Government reducing the tax rate for oiled cake from four percent to two percent. The State contended that the exemption granted applied only to oiled cake and not de-oiled cake, as they are considered two separate commodities. The Tribunal, however, interpreted the notification differently, considering both as the same product. The Court held that the State's notification clearly specified the reduction in tax rate only for oiled cake, and the distinction between the two commodities was deliberate. The Court found the Tribunal's interpretation incorrect and upheld the State's position. Issue 2: Distinction between oiled cake and de-oiled cake for tax purposes The argument presented by the respondent's counsel was that oiled cake and de-oiled cake are essentially the same product and should not be distinguished for tax purposes. The counsel contended that both products serve the same purpose and should be treated alike. However, the Court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that the State's notification specifically differentiated between oiled cake and de-oiled cake. The Court found no grounds to support the contention that these two commodities should be treated as one for tax assessment. Issue 3: Correct application of notification by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal by the assessee, modifying the assessment order under the CST Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on its interpretation that no reference could be made to the schedule entries under the KST Act when interpreting commodities covered by government notifications. However, the Court disagreed with this approach, stating that the Tribunal had erred in not considering the specific entries in the Schedule. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect, and the original assessment order was restored by setting aside the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the Court upheld the State's position regarding the tax treatment of oiled cake and de-oiled cake, emphasizing the distinction between the two commodities as specified in the notification. The Tribunal's interpretation was deemed incorrect, and the original assessment order was reinstated.
|
