9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Prabhakara Sastry JJ. Petitioner: (By Sri M. Kumar, AGA) Respondent: (By Sri Pramod S. Yadwad And Sri H.R. Kambiyavar, Advocates) S. Sujatha J. COMMON ORDER These revision petitions are directed against the common judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru ( the Tribunal for short) in S.T.A. Nos. 914 to 934/2012 Cross Appeal Nos. S.T.A.Nos.136 5 to 1385/2014 and S.T.A. Nos. 892 to 903/2013 for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2008-09. 2. These revisions petitions are considered together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts in brief are that, the dealers registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( the Act for short) were engaged in ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Reinforcement Frames are different commercial commodity from iron and steel, because each Steel Reinforcement Frames/ structural steel for roof, beam and pillar is customized and therefore is not available across the shelf in the open market? 7. The Tribunal while considering the matter as to whether the tax is leviable at 4% as declared goo ds on iron and steel used in the execution of works contr act has recorded the reasons in confirming the rate of tax at 4% on the sale of items of iron and steel utilized in the execution of the works contract. The issue involved herein is no longer res integra in view of the dictum enunciated by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. B. Narasamma V/s the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is point of time this would not serve any purpose. Instead, it is enough to set aside both the judgments impugned by the assessees, dated 01.09.2006 and 12.08.2004, in light of the law laid down in Builders Association and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley (supra), and declare that the declared goods in question can only be taxed at the rate of 4% . (emphasis supplied) This judgment has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka V/s S.Narayan Reddy, 2016(86) Kar.L.J. 369 (HC) (DB). 8. We are satisfied that no question of law arises in the present revision petitions, the same being n ow covered by the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in Smt. B.Narasamma (supra). Accordingly, revision petitions fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
