9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional authority was right in law in holding that PCOM were taxable as "electronic goods" falling under entry No. 4 of Part E of the Second Schedule appended to the Act and not as "computer of all kinds" falling under entry 20(i) of Part C of the Second Schedule appended to the Act? Held that:- Without considering the actual point that had arisen for the consideration the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, has set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore in regard to commission earned by the assessee by selling the goods on commission basis. As it is an apparent error on the face of the record, we have to answer question No. 1 in favour of the assessee. Since the Commissioner has followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd revisional authority was right in law in holding that PCOM were taxable as electronic goods falling under entry No. 4 of Part E of the Second Schedule appended to the Act and not as computer of all kinds falling under entry 20(i) of Part C of the Second Schedule appended to the Act? 3. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: The appellant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 dealing with the purchase or sale of electronic goods, public call office machines, etc. For the assessment year 1999-2000 the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment 14), Bangalore, by his order dated November 30, 2001 passed an order holding that public call office machines are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and show-cause notice was issued only in regard to nature of goods sold by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that without considering the actual point that had arisen for the consideration the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, has set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore in regard to commission earned by the assessee by selling the goods on commission basis. As it is an apparent error on the face of the record, we have to answer question No. 1 in favour of the assessee. 5. So far as second point in concerned, the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, relying upon the judgment of this court in Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
