9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the restaurant. Its main business is not dealing in the said goods. In the case of SRI. 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 - It was held in the case that When so fixed in the floor, the Vitrified Tiles ofcourse became the part of the immovable property, and it is beyond the common sense and basic commercial prudence to even comprehend that the Vitrified Tile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 2. Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order, insofar as it holds that the prohibition on purchase of goods from outside the State by composition dealer under the KVAT Act does not apply to capital goods? 2. Heard Shri. Jeevan J.Neralagi, learned AGA for petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are, respondent is a Proprietary firm and runs a Fast Food Restaurant. It has opted for composition scheme for payment of tax as per Section 15(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 (Karnataka Value Added Tax Act) and filing monthly returns in Form VAT 120, and the same were being assessed at the rate of 4% on the sale of food items. 4. Assessee's premises was inspected by the jurisdictional Commercial T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst Appellate Authority, on appreciation of facts on record have rightly denied the benefit to pay taxes under composition to the respondent. However, the KAT has allowed the appeals on an erroneous assumption that the goods in question are not 'goods held in stock'. In view of the admitted facts, the benefit of composition is not available to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the KAT is unsustainable in law. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of Shri. Jeevan Neeralagi and perused the records. 7. Undisputed facts of the case are, respondent owns a Fast Food Restaturant. He has purchased Refrigerators, Freezers etc., from outside the State as capital equipment to run the restaurant. Its main bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
