TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered. The revision petition is allowed. Without giving any finding on the substantial questions of law, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing authority to reconsider the same taking into consideration the materials produced by the petitioner and also taking into consideration the impact of section 3A for the purpose of passing order under section 3BB of the Act and pass orders in accordance with law. - CRP No. 350 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2012 - SREEDHAR RAO K. AND MANOHAR B., JJ. For the Appellant : Rajeshchander Kumar for M/s. Chander Kumar Assts For the Respondent : T.K. Vedamurthy, High Court Government Pleader, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d parts of the tractors are the agricultural machinery and they are exempted from payment of entry tax. Since there is a dispute with regard to the fact whether the tractor is agricultural machinery or not, he had paid the entry tax. He has filed a petition for refund of the excess tax paid by him. In the meantime, the assessing officer initiated the proceedings under section 3BB of the KTEG Act. The excess amount was confiscated on the ground that the said amount has been collected from the consumers and hence the assessee is not entitled for refund of the said amount. Holding that collection of tax is contrary to section 3A of the Act, the assessing officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee. The assessee filed detailed objections t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 20, 2002 dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee has failed to establish that they have not passed on the entry tax burden to their customers. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate authority, the assessee preferred STA No. 542 of 2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated April 6, 2010 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the order dated April 6, 2010, the assessee preferred this revision petition. 4. Sri Rajeshchander Kumar, advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the customers. In view of that the excess tax paid by the petitioner has been forfeited. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to the relief sought for by them and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. This revision petition has been filed along with the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order dated 20/12/2002 of the JCCT (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore, thereby holding that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of section 3A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, resulting in forfeiture of tax wrongfully paid under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try tax burden on the consumers. The specific case of the petitioner is that necessary materials have been produced before the assessing authority, but the same is not considered. This court in CRP No. 955 of 2005 in similar circumstances had set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the authorities concerned and remanded the matter to the assessing authority to reconsider the same taking into consideration the materials produced by the petitioner and also taking into consideration the impact of section 3A for the purpose of passing order under section 3BB of the Act. The facts in the present case are similarly situated. 9. Following the order made in CRP No. 955 of 2005, we pass the following : ORDER The revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|