9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the respondents. These appeals are directed against the order dated November 24, 2011 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. Nos. 66242-66244 of 2009 (Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2014] 73 VST 443 (Karn)). By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed these appeals. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Respondent No. 4 passed assessment orders dated August 22, 2006 for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 granting exemption from tax on the finished goods and sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Thereafter, pursuant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced. The demand for payment of CST levied denying the benefit of set-off is illegal and cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the issue of incentive was not considered in W. A. No. 2417 of 2009 (Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2013] 1 VST-OL 586 (Karn)) and amendment to section 8(5) of the CST Act, will not prohibit continuation of incentive. He also submitted that form C was not required in respect of sales with the unregistered dealers. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders vide annexures M, N and P to the writ petition cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision of this court in Adeshwar Granites Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore District v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Karn)) has held that section 8(5) of the CST Act is prospective in nature and the assessee who wants to avail of benefit of section 8(5) of the CST Act requires to fulfil the conditions mentioned therein, namely, filing of form C. Thereafter, another Division Bench of this court in Adeshwar Granites Private Limited, Bangalore District v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore [2013] 64 VST 519 (Karn); [2012] 73 KLJ 435) has observed as follows in paragraph 32 (page 529 in 64 VST): We have examined this submission in some detail. We find that the requirement of sub-section (4) of section 8 of the CST Act in itself is for the purpose of claiming the benefit of the lower rate of tax as indicated in sub-section (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
