9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is concerned, it is to be noted that the legitimate amount which was to be collected by the Revenue was not deposited by the assessee- appellant because of the claim at concessional rate of tax. Considering the quantum of tax involved and the period for which the amount was withheld, we are of the view that levy of penalty of rupees five lakhs would suffice. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from today if not already done. - Civil Appeal No. 439 of 2007, S.T.A. No. 1 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2007 - ARIJIT PASAYAT DR. AND KAPADIA S.H. JJ. Sanjay R. Hedge, Anil K. Mishra, Vikrant Yadav and Sashidhar, Advocates for the respondent. U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Nikhil Majothia, Joseph Pookkatt and Pras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the tower cranes so purchased by the assessee are nothing but machinery covered under Sl. No. 1(iii) of Part "M" of the Second Schedule to the Act and since the company had not fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under the Notification No. FD.43.CSL 94(iv) dated March 31, 1994, it was not eligible to claim any benefit under the notification and, therefore, had initiated proceedings under section 8A(5)(a) of the Act. In the said proceeding, it was the stand of the assessee- appellant that it is an industrial unit located in the State and the purchase of the machinery made by it is used in the manufacturing of goods for sale and, therefore, eligible and also entitled to take the benefit of the notification issued by the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate authority assigned several reasons. However, the amount of penalty was reduced by 50 per cent. Appellant filed an appeal under section 24(1) of the Act. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the assessing authority was not justified in holding that the assessee had contravened the conditions specified in the notification issued by the State Government dated March 31, 1994 and, therefore, levy of penalty under section 8A(5)(a) of the Act was not justified. On the contrary, stand of the respondent-State was that since the assessee did not satisfy all the conditions specified in the notification, the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority were justified in directing the assessee to pay the amount equal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpretation, it should have been held that the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of the notification. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and orders of the authorities below and the impugned judgment of the High Court. In order to appreciate the rival submissions the notification which forms focal point of controversy is to be quoted. The same reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby reduces with effect from the first day of April, 1994, the rate of tax payable by a dealer under section 5 of the said Act to four per cent on, (i) raw edible oil when sold to a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch used in the solvent extraction process or a catalyst required in the manufacturing process, but it does not include fuels and consumable stores of similar types. All these conditions require to be satisfied by the dealer effecting the sale of machinery of all kinds to an industrial unit to claim reduced rate of tax under the notification. There is no dispute that a crane is a hoisting machine used to lift and move heavy loads. There are different types of cranes and tower crane is one such crane which is mostly used to construct high rise buildings. It has been noted by the High Court that most tower cranes also called "climbing cranes", have built in jacks that raise the cranes through openings in the floor as the building goes up. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m not exceeding the amount equivalent to the amount of tax leviable on the sale price of the goods. It has been accepted by the respondent that the amount of tax payable is Rs. 10,28,875 though originally it was calculated at Rs. 10,71,745. The appellant had purchased the tower cranes to the extent of Rs. 1,71,47,917.80 in the year 1995 and had availed concessional rate of tax of four per cent on the said purchase by producing declaration in form 37, i.e., declaration prescribed under section 5A of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was a finding recorded by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) under section 20(5) of the Act that the order of the assessing authority imposing tax and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
