9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANANTHA PADMANABHA BHAT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, BENGALURU AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT) , BENGALURU [ 2016 (7) TMI 546 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , rightly relied upon by the KAT, this Court has held that the vitrified tiles used in the restaurant owned by the assessee therein were not sold by him in the regular course of business but they were used for the flooring of the restaurant where it was held that When so fixed in the floor, the Vitrified Tiles of-course became the part of the immovable property, and it is beyond the common sense and basic commercial prudence to even comprehend that the Vitrified Tiles fixed on the floor of the restaurant could be treated by an assessing authority as the 'goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are, respondent, an individual is engaged in the activity of stone crushing. In respect of assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Assessing Authority has passed re-assessment orders under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act (Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003) and granted the benefit of paying taxes by way of composition under Section 15(1)(d) of the Act. The Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Tax Department learnt that respondent had purchased machinery from outside the State by utilizing declaration in Form-C. Consequently, reassessment orders dated March 28, 2018 were passed under Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act denying the benefit of payment of taxes by way of composition. Respondent s appeal challenging the said order before the First App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition under Section 15(1)(d) of the KVAT Act. 6. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Undisputed facts of the case are, respondent owns a stone crushing unit. He has bought stone crushing machinery from outside the State by giving C-Form. His main business is not dealing in stone crushing equipments. 8. In the case of Shri. Anantha Padmanabha Bhat Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another W.P. No. 54356, 54357/2015 (Tax-res) and W.P. Nos. 57006-57027/2015 decided on 03.06.2016 , rightly relied upon by the KAT, this Court has held that the vitrified tiles used in the assessee s restaurant was not sold by him in the regular course of business but used for the flooring of the restaur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
