9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r constitutional discipline of Article 246 to adopt the sources of revenue which are exclusive received for the Union Parliament - applicability of judgement of ANAND SWARUP MAHESH KUMAR VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [ 1980 (9) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT] - validity to proceed with the appeals while the question of legislative competence of State of Karnataka are pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court? HELD THAT:- The Tribunal referring to various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as well as the Service Tax Rules, 1994, has observed that it is not possible or permissible to segregate the service tax component for the purpose of levy of entertainment tax in the case of the appellant as the service tax component is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2021 - HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY Petitioner (By Sri Vivek Sarin, Adv. Sri S.M. Anees Ahamed, Adv.) Respondent (By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralagi, AGA) ORDER VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., 1. This revision petition under Section 8F of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') is filed challenging the common order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Appeals) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in STA Nos.1916 to 1954 of 2014 (Annexure-A), wherein the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 in Appeal No.KET-AP:20 to 58 of 2009-10 (Annexure-B) and the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had failed to produce the relevant documents regarding collection of service tax/ entertainment tax, assessment and re-assessment orders were passed against the petitioner for the period commencing from April 2006 to June 2009 by 39 separate orders and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 8-B(5) of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed on 08.07.2014 and the assessment and re-assessment orders passed against the petitioner was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed 39 separate appeals before the Tribunal under Section 8-E(1) of the Act, and by order dated 10.03.2016, the said appeals were dismissed confirming the orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to produce the invoices raised by him against the subscribers to show that he has not been collecting separate service tax. No material was produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority or before the appellate authorities in this regard and petitioner has only produced the statement of accounts which are totally irrelevant. In view of the failure of the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, the authorities below were constrained to pass the impugned orders which does not call for any interference, and accordingly prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel on both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal referring to various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as well as the Service Tax Rules, 1994, has observed that it is not possible or permissible to segregate the service tax component for the purpose of levy of entertainment tax in the case of the appellant as the service tax component is not indicated separately in the bills or invoices issued to the customers. No proof is available on records to show that service tax has been separately collected. It was further observed that the charging Section 4-G of the Act uses the expression 'on the amounts received or receivable' is liable for entertainment tax at 6%, and therefore, the assessing authority is correct in levying entertainment tax on service tax component, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding the invoices raised by it as against the subscribers, and thereafter, the appeals shall be heard and disposed of in the light of the notification/circular dated 01.08.2002 and 13.04.2016 relied upon by the petitioner sans answering the questions of law raised. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed in part; ii) The common order dated 10.03.2016 passed in STA Nos.1916 to 1954 of 2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside; iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for re-consideration; iv) The Tribunal shall re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove and appropriate orders shall be passed in an expedite manne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
