9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver by relying upon section 5C of the KST Act. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was also justified in dismissing the appeal and similarly the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is also right in dismissing the second appeal of the assessee. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the questions of law answered against the assessee. - 85 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2009 - MANJUNATH K.L. AND ARAVIND KUMAR , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by K.L. MANJUNATH J. This revision petition is filed by the assessee challenging the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Bangalore, dated September 8, 2004, which has been confirmed by the Joint Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 11,26,414 under section 5C of the KST Act, could not have been considered by the assessing officer and the said amount is exempted from tax. The contention of the assessee was turned down by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), dismissed the appeal of the assessee on May 13, 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in STA No. 1170/2005. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, formulated the following points for its consideration: (1) Whether the assessing authority is justified in levying tax under section 5C of the KST Act on the turnover of Rs. 11,26,414 and whether the first appellate authority is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question No. 1 as hereunder: In order to appreciate the contentions of both the parties, it would be necessary for us to refer to the facts of this case. According to the assessee certain machineries and vehicles of the assessee were permitted to be used by its customers, M/s. Mysore Construction Company. The Mysore Construction Company had undertaken the construction activities in different places. Accordingly, the machineries of the assessee were dumped into the site of the Mysore Construction Company. The assessee has not produced any agreements entered into between the assessee and the Mysore Construction Company to show the nature of transaction in order to find out whether the assessee had only permitted the Mysore Construction Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies at the site. No material is also placed before the assessing officer that the employees of the assessee were handling the machineries and the assessee was only collecting the hire charges and that there was no actual transfer of machinery to M/s. Mysore Construction Company to house the same at its site. In the absence of any material, we are of the view that the assessing officer was justified in holding that in the absence of transfer of right to use the goods, by the assessee in favour of its customers, it would be difficult to rely upon the bills raised by the assessee to come to the conclusion that no such transfer was effected while using the machineries of the assessee by M/s. Mysore Construction Company. Therefore, on facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
