9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT]. Therein also the assessee having suffered loss received some amounts from the suppliers for the purpose of recouping the loss suffered by it. Based on Explanation VII to Section 2(1ii) the amount transferred to recoup the loss was included in the turnover - the first question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Whether the lower authorities were correct in having estimated the sales turnover at 3.12% gross profit and added on the discount for the purpose of computing the taxable turnover? - Held that:- There has been double taxation effected by application of Explanation VII to Section 2(lii). The actual purchase price by adding on the duty wages and loading and unloading charges was found to be ₹ 1,14,88,348 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving applied Explanation VII to Section 2(lii) and added on the discount for the purpose of computing the turnover? 2. An ancillary question arises, which is framed as follows: Whether the lower authorities were correct in having estimated the sales turnover at 3.12% gross profit and added on the discount for the purpose of computing the taxable turnover? 3. The assessee had filed its return declaring its purchase price, as also the taxable turnover. The purchase price did not include duty wages and loading and unloading charges respectively of ₹ 37,370/- and ₹ 2,31,176/-. The Assessing Officer found that these are direct expenses forming part of production/purchase. The purchase price of the assessee hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by judgment dated 12.04.2017 found that there was no provision similar to Explanation VII of Section 2(lii) of the KVAT Act, in the Karnataka enactment. The said decision was found to be inapplicable insofar as the provisions of KVAT Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee would also refer to another three Judge Bench decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in Maya Appliances (P) Ltd. V. Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [(2018) 2 SCC 756] . We notice that the said decision also was on the Karnataka Value Added Taxes Act, which did not contain the provision in the Kerala VAT enactment. We hence answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 6. Despite our answering the question in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
