9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent materials are used in construction and thereafter they are transferred, the revision authority was justified in leaving that question to be decided by the assessing officer keeping in mind law on the point. The Advance Ruling Authority was not justified in giving their opinion in too general terms and was capable of being misinterpreted. Certainly, the opinion given by the Advance Ruling Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and it is also not in accordance with law. No justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Commissioner. Appeal dismissed. - S.T.A. No. 144 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2011 - KUMAR N. AND RAVI MALIMATH JJ. B.G. Chidananda Urs and B. S. Prasad for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Commissioner was of the view, whether the goods purchased for works contract were incorporated in the same form or not is a question of fact which is to be addressed by the assessing authority and not by the Advance Ruling Authority. It was erroneous on the part of the Advance Ruling Authority to give an advance ruling that the rate of tax applicable on goods involved in the execution of works contract shall be at the rate of applicable to these goods under the KVAT Act, 2003. The said ruling is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as it pre-empts assessing authorities from giving a different interpretation of law depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, it set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the material which is used in the construction and thereafter transfer and therefore, she submits, no fault could be found with the said order. Section 64(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 reads as under:- ......... The Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer subordinate to him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
