2016 (4) TMI 49 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Applicability of Rule 3(2)(c)and its proviso of KVAT Rules to CST Act - Engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of cutting tools - Held that - the revising authority proceeded to initiate revisional proceedings based on the Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Southern Motors vs State of Karnataka 2015 (3) TMI 433 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , and accordingly, concluded the proceedings following the said Judgment. Also no contentions urged by the assessee are addressed by the revisional authority while concluding the revisional proceedings except M/s Southern Motors. Therefore, the matter is to be remanded back. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order passed by Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for tax periods 2006-07 to 2009-10 under CST Act and KVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered dealer under KVAT Act and CST Act engaged in manufacturing and trading, faced reassessment by the Assessing Authority for claiming discounts. The Assessing Authority issued notices under CST Act and KVAT Act seeking objections and subsequently passed re-assessment orders denying the claimed deduction on annual turnover discount.

2. Aggrieved by the reassessment orders, the appellant appealed before the First Appellate Authority, which allowed the appeals. The Assessing Authority revised the demand notices due to an apparent mistake. However, the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated revisional proceedings against the First Appellate Authority's order, considering it prejudicial to revenue's interest.

3. The revisional authority partially set aside the First Appellate Authority's order and restored the Assessing Authority's order regarding the annual turnover discount. This decision led to the issuance of demand notices by the Assessing Authority. Subsequently, the appellant filed appeals challenging the revisional orders before the High Court.

4. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the revisional authority passed orders without addressing the objections raised by the assessee, solely relying on a specific judgment. The counsel contended that the KVAT Rules do not apply to the CST Act and that the revisional authority failed to consider crucial issues raised by the appellant.

5. In contrast, the Government Pleader representing the revenue supported the revisional authority's decision. After considering both parties' arguments and reviewing the case, the High Court observed that the revisional authority based its decision solely on a specific judgment without addressing the appellant's contentions.

6. The High Court concluded that the revisional authority did not adequately consider the appellant's arguments and remanded the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that the provisions of KVAT Rules may not be applicable to CST Act assessments and directed the revisional authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, allowing all contentions to be raised before it.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, arguments presented by both parties, and the High Court's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration, ensuring all relevant legal aspects are addressed appropriately.