9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tobacco products and liquor and not in respect of PCC cement poles. Explanation II does not in any way alter the liability of the dealer in terms of the rate as stipulated in the main Table. Appeal dismissed. - 1,2,3 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2009 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND ARAVIND KUMAR , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR J. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, the Act ). For the period between April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003 the assessee it appears had effected purchases of cement for the purpose of using it in the manufacture of cement poles and in the course of the activity had caused the entry of the goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the assessment order fastening the liability on the appellant-dealer in respect of the value of cement brought into local area at fiver per cent as in the Table, being of the view that Explanation II does not extend any benefit as claimed by the dealer. It is aggrieved by this order, the present appeal. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Atul K. Alur, learned counsel, would vehemently urge that Explanation II very clearly gave the benefit in respect of items not covered under Explanation I and cement being not an entry in Explanation I, the appellant-dealer was entitled to claim benefit of Explanation II, etc. It is also the alternative submission of Sri Atul K. Alur, the learned counsel for the appellant-dealer, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the statutory provisions, we find no benefit as claimed by the appellant can be extended. The assessment order was right and the Additional Commissioner has rightly restored it, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority. While it is true that Explanation II makes a deviation in so far as the rate of tax leviable on entry of goods covered by that Explanation is caused by a dealer and consequentially the tax liability under the Act, it makes a difference only in the case of such raw material consumed in the manufacture of tobacco products and liquor and not in respect of PCC cement poles. Explanation II does not in any way alter the liability of the dealer in terms of the rate as stipulated in the main Table. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
