9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1449 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - petitioners/Revenue submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the classification of electrical meter vis-a-vis certificate of registration issued to the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the generation and distribution of electricity - Whether the order of the KAT, Bengaluru, set aside the Appel late Order passed under sections 10(b), 10A(1) read with section 9(2) of the CST Act by the FAA and LVO, is in accordance with law? HELD THAT - We are not convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/Revenue. No exception can be found with the finding of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no question of law arises for our consideration in these revision petitions - revision petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenging common judgment by Revenue under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Delay aspect in considering revision petitions. Substantial questions of law framed in appeal memorandum. Classification of electrical meter and CFL bulbs for concessional tax rate. Scope of revision and arguments by Revenue. Tribunal's judgment on electrical meters and concessional tax rate. Condoning delay in filing revision petitions. Analysis: The High Court of Karnataka heard revision petitions filed by the Revenue challenging a common judgment by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The petitions were filed under section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 with a delay of 1165 days. The court stated that it would have considered the delay aspect liberally if the Revenue had established a good case on merits, and after hearing arguments from both parties, the court proceeded to make a decision. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum included the sustainability of the Tribunal's order and the legality of setting aside the Appellate Order passed under relevant sections of the CST Act. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the classification of electrical meters and CFL bulbs for concessional tax rates. The Revenue contended that the electrical meter purchased by the assessee did not qualify as electrical goods for concessional rates and that the use of "C" Forms for CFL bulbs was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The court, however, was not convinced by the Revenue's arguments for two main reasons. Firstly, the court noted that the scope of revision was limited, and points not addressed by the Tribunal could not be considered for the first time in revision. Secondly, the Tribunal had extensively considered relevant judgments and concluded that electrical meters installed for recording energy supplied to consumers fell under the CST Act, allowing for concessional tax rates. The court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision and concluded that no legal question merited consideration in the revision petitions. In light of the above analysis, the court dismissed the Revenue's delay condonation application, stating that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the significant delay in filing the revision petitions. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Tribunal's judgment on the classification of electrical meters and the use of concessional tax rates for the assessee.
|
