9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the authority was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue has rightly exercised his power and ruling of the Commissioner is justified in regard to the classification of the "resin coated sand" under residuary clause. Question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Based on the clarification of the Advance Rulings Authority with effect from April 1, 2007, the assessee had collected tax at the rate of four per cent only and not at the rate of 12.5 per cent. In view of the same, we have to answer question No. 2 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. - S.T.A. No. 14 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - MANJUNATH K.L. AND KEMPANNA H.S. JJ. For the Appellant : S.P. Bhat an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxed at four per cent. This order was passed on March 29, 2007. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having noticed the order passed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue exercising the powers vested under section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, issued a notice to the appellantassessee and after hearing, it came to the conclusion that the resin coated sand is liable to be taxed at 12.5 per cent under section 4(1)(b) of the Act, treating it as unscheduled commodity with effect from June 7, 2005. Being aggrieved by the divergent findings, the present appeal is filed. 5. Sri S.P. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that resin coated sand cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Advance Rulings Authority. In the circumstances, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, she contends that resin coated sand would not fall under entry 83 of the Third Schedule, but it would fall under residual clause as held by the Commissioner. She further contends when this legal position was known to the assessee, the order passed by the Commissioner stating that the resin coated sand is liable to be taxed at 12.5 per cent with effect from June 7, 2005, is justified. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and question No. 2 has to be answered in favour of the assessee for the following reasons: In the case of Vijayashree Shell-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has failed to exercise their power properly. When the Government Advocate would contend that the decision of the Tribunal was known to the assessee, she cannot contend that the same decision was not known to the Advance Ruling Authority. They are the officers of the same Department. Therefore, we are of the view that when the order of the Advance Rulings Authority has been set aside by the Commissioner, it can be prospective and not retrospective. 9. Sri S.P. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that, based on the clarification of the Advance Rulings Authority with effect from April 1, 2007, the assessee had collected tax at the rate of four per cent only and not at the rate of 12.5 per cent. In view of the same, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
