9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of the dealer proving the payment of tax both under the KST Act and the CST Act as a requirement, which if not applied could disentitle the dealer the claim for reimbursement. The Tribunal is justified in deleting the observation of the first appellate authority as the requirement of filing form 32B was not a requirement in terms of statutory provision as it existed corresponding to the accounting period in question. Revision dismissed. - 7 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2009 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR J. This sales tax revision filed under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short, the KST Act ) though has come up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had paid the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short, the KST Act ) at four per cent on the same and later on having sold the said goods in the inter-State transaction, CST at two per cent as was applicable and having been levied and paid, it appears had claimed refund of the difference tax liability between the State Act and Central Act, filing refund application under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Act. This claim for refund has been disallowed by the assessing authority, as the assessee did not come forward to produce any supporting material to prove that the transaction of the goods had been subjected to the KST and subsequently on the sale of very goods commensurate CST was paid by the dealer. The assessment order was an ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been sold in the interState trade and having paid Central sales tax on the same, before ordering the claim application and allowing refund to the dealer, the assessee has to satisfy the original authority about the actual payment of tax under the KST Act and therefore the claim for verification was nevertheless affirmed. The State is in revision only to the extent of the Appellate Tribunal deleting the observation of the first appellate authority about the requirement of filing a declaration in form 32B of the Act. We have bestowed our attention to the submissions made at the Bar. We find that for the relevant accounting period the proviso under section A of the Act is not attracted, and if so, there is no question of fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
