Karnataka High Court
Aditya Surgical Co. vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION Nos.20411-422/2017 (T-RES)
Between:
Aditya Surgical Co.,
No.46, West Anjaneya Temple Street
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
Represented herein by its Proprietor
Mr. Girish T.K.
Aged about 54 years.
.. Petitioner
(By Mr. K.P. Kumar, Sr. Counsel for
Mr. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented herein by the
Principal Secretary
Finance Department
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Vanijya Therige Karyalaya
1st Floor, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (Audit) -3.8, Bangalore
2nd Floor, BMTC Bus Stand
K.H. Road, Shantinagar
Bangalore-560 027.
... Respondents
(By Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA)
Date of Order 11-09-2017 W.P.Nos.20411-422/2017
Aditya Surgical Co. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
2/6
***
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned re-
assessment order dated 27-03-2017 (Annexure 'J') bearing
No.ACCT (A)-3.8/16-17, CAS Order No.249025257 and Demand
No.132475661 passed by the 3rd Respondent for the tax periods
April 2010 to March 2011 under the provisions of the Karnataka
Value Added Tax Act, 2003 & etc.,
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Mr. K.P. Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Mr. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate for petitioner; Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA for Respondents
1. The petitioner - Company has filed these writ petitions with the following prayers:
"(i) quashing the impugned re-assessment order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure 'J') bearing No.ACCT(A)-3.8/16-17, CAS Order No.249025257 and Demand No.132475661 passed by the 3rd Respondent for the tax periods April 2010 to March 2011 under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003;
Date of Order 11-09-2017 W.P.Nos.20411-422/2017 Aditya Surgical Co. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
3/6(ii) quashing the Demand Notice dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure 'K') bearing CAS Order No.249025257 and Demand No.132475661 issued by the 3rd Respondent for the tax periods April 2010 to March 2011 under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003;
(iii) quashing the impugned Clarification No.CLR.CR.111/ 2013-14 dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure 'F') issued by the 2nd Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003;
(iv) declaring that blood collection monitors, blood storage refrigerators and deep freezers, platelet agitators and incubators, plasma expressers, plasma thawing baths and cryo baths are "medical equipment and devices" falling within the purview of Entry 61 of the III Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act,2003; and
(v) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity."
Date of Order 11-09-2017 W.P.Nos.20411-422/2017 Aditya Surgical Co. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
4/62. The learned counsel for the petitioner- Company submits that the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.41575/2016 decided on 11-09-2017 (Aditya Surgical Co. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another) of the same petitioner Assessee, in which this Court has held as under:
"11. The learned Commissioner has wrongly taken the impugned view in the impugned order dated 23/06/2016, perhaps just to take a pro- revenue approach in the matter, whereas, Section 59 casts an obligation upon him to take a balanced and reasoned view of the matter, because the very purpose of Section 59(4) of the KVAT Act is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and avoid different views being taken by the different Assessing Authorities working in the said Department. Section 59 deals with "Instructions to Subordinate Authorities" and Section 60 of the KVAT Act deals with "Clarification and Advance Rulings". These provisions contained in Chapter VI of the KVAT Act are precisely made to render Advance Rulings to obviate unnecessary litigation and give binding guidance to the lower Assessing Authorities. The rationale and reasons Date of Order 11-09-2017 W.P.Nos.20411-422/2017 Aditya Surgical Co. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.5/6
assigned by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order do not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the common parlance test or Trade parlance test which have to be applied while making such interpretations in the exercise of powers under Sections 59 and 60 of the KVAT Act.
12. The present writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, Annexure F, dated 27/06/2016 and consequential Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Authorities in pursuance of the said order, it is held that the goods viz. "Blood Collection Monitors, Blood Storage Refrigerators and Deep Freezers, Platelet Agitators with incubators and Plasma Expressers (Electrical and Manual) and Cryobaths" will be taxable at the rate of 4% under Entry 61 "Medical Equipments, Devices and Implants" and not in the Residuary Entry of the KVAT Act, 2003. No costs."
3. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are also allowed in the same terms and the impugned re-assessment Order dated 27/03/2017, Annexure J and the Order passed Date of Order 11-09-2017 W.P.Nos.20411-422/2017 Aditya Surgical Co. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
6/6by the Commissioner, Annexure F dated 27/06/2016 are quashed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*