Karnataka High Court
M/S.Schindler India (P) Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 2 February, 2011
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
rd .
§i\5 THE. HEG H. C.'(')'L?R'I" (.359 KAl{N:'\'§}'XKA AT l3;»='\NGAl_,(:}RE
Hated this the '.72."d (lay of February, 2€3}'I
Be-1-'<:>rc
THE H0N*1sLz:: MR JUSTI(Jl:' HULUVAIJI G ILAM5 ;f'sH;.: '
Wri1'Petitir;1-as 11704-- 714 / 2010 c/w 2%1sr);{.L;".e'.27%%«/
I6150~--16I / 2010 C/w 16772~783",§2r}1_()'' ' mee;,% _ _
Between:
WPS 11704-714/2010
M/'5; Schindier India {P} 1:16 A» by i{:§* * ' L 1, _
M.anag<: - Sri Vi1121yTL1Tej:1, 40 y§."1s' " _ '
# 23:4, 11. F100;: W' Cfr(>ss_"' "
S11z1st1'inz1gzu'.KR R()::ci" " ._ :_ V .A
Bangalore 5(a()(')28__. " , E'etiti0r1er
("By Sri R V PTE;Sé1(i "
A:ss0ci:.Ltes, Adv.) * vv .-
And.'
; 'Cfi3iT:V§11c.1fV c.§a_§Officer (Audit 23)
A D C} '-Bz1":3g1{Vz;i_Q_';%..;":
C(>m__11ai.s§i¢>n{:'§:~ <5 §'* Cfotnxnenzi .21} Taxes;
.V In K£Li'i12iEé1ki1
__ 'yf/z1jr1i_jy21v»'...'.":'1<'::"igc K.é'11.'yalz1ya
~ i M.ain, G2111e1hi.:1é1g::1'
' '..B'z1»:@gai!(>1'c 9
m'Wmnmm_
2..-J
dated 23.3.2{)If). zmne..mres E and F; 30.6.2OJ() ~« zmnexures D to 137;
29.4.2() 1.0 ~ asme><;1.:1'es D to D3; i.5.4$.2(.)}.{} «-- 2=1rmexure A The Petiticms coming on for Hearing" this dzsgv, Cm.;r1_jm_;_1Ldefile I"eEio\>.,-*i1.1 g:
(JRDER In these petitions, pemionerswa.te"eh21EIengi11g'the ":}r€ie1_9f>:;Is{§ed by the Assessing Authority ilcfldizgg the n;1a--:mA.i"'a<;t'Lire, suppiy' vz1A:1.d* Vins1aEE.ati0n efIiI'i.s as sales and m"cie;'i:1g Le 'C<.)E_Eec.tVf:»1):<'. ('.m=!_.i1:: ggwyuzld that ii" is only :1 works contract am! lije eom;7je11ei1'1S9:'-Lye u~sed_1e' b'uii'd. the lift at the .~_sp0t and, it deed not é;1I12rj}:1:11 ti; sz11e'.'~.i'_i _i.5<_0nEy 21 service contract iike works contract as slieh, pe.1iti<'>V;1er$j' are'*1-.i.;ib'.k§'<)nly to pay tax imposed as service and not to lrfeat 1he':~::;m.1e~ze--Ls szii-£3.
V' E_i z1;:';g3g5z1.rs,' p"e.§it.:.()13e1"s also have depearmed _'S(W: £21' the. i§€%'Y}£iI'i£§ "vzmmum.--311:1gxre_e.§1:1Eie11gi.11g the very order of demand treati11g their ' 'a':Q1'i'vé}}-3 as sz%E.e7ef ge()ds.;._ 1'cf<:nfieg E0 the decision of the Apex C()iI.E.'l in % "4::e7e.c._<;:*).
Ii'§}i.3VIEl.s>1«;&éztr)r (India) Pvt Ltd Vs State of Tamil Nzzdu ~ 2008 (15) VS?'
3., 4 ;'\CC01'LiiI"1g to the petitic:.me1i~;, in the said decision, having noted the tiix-iergent View tttken 11}; two t1i1Te1'e:1t. Benches; 0? the Apex C()L11"l.-'U}.i'l[t{'31."
has been referred to the C("31}8{i{%.§{i()i1 Bench and is pending es3113iderfat§'c.>3'3 and therefore, ;)1f:tye'1 that tiil the t§ispo.~;2ti of the said a;);ie'ai.EatéVi'orei Apex Court, the matter he kept in abeyttnee," ' .& _ _ _ V Government PE.e.t1de.:f sttbrraitted that, 'ifor lrtiresient,'-.t]1e ifi'.{5t~i_gfi{*f '.1 order is passed treating the very ;'1etiV"it3)'*~:_:s; a sziie of gtyotis a=..r2'd--vser'v*iec is: V L' on}! minirnum as )t'.1" the decision t>i'___the_S'a reme "C.ou1't in State 0 Andhra Pradesh Vs Kane 1i'le}>r:i1io:';s'i{1rzi§li(z)u S TC' 22 and the service proit-g'ide_d --b}~'i Vtiés: -«vei11:it>'1' o.r_1_I3,--t negii gibie. Oi' C(;.'1,11'5~st3 to Viit;3i':_ic}._th:;tt"».E..]1e said judgment is not properly interpret'ed,_ when*:he 1:1t1.t'te1*"wz1§" ":;11'gued before. the Apex Court referring t<'ivsor11e..o'th*.:1: desczzisitms o5i"'t'i1e Apex Court in State of Ifajasihan & Orr; ~'i'r?1'.eiiziA e'Ivv.TIft?!";l'li5'fii'Vl.{!_l iCorporation Ltd - 1969 { 24 ) STC 349 and aim two ot11e1'ie.z'1se.< Vwlierjeiit ti \-'i€'W has been taken that it is only 2% serviee ""-:iV"V"«et§m'1":1et :1ié_d,__ inoting '§'ttrthe:f that Hlitlh deeisitms have not beeri noticed "~.;vi1'ii_Ee' .iien--de1'ii1g t}1e__jtadgi1ae11E. placing relitmee on Hincfitzstztn Shippirig fa Ihcmron as is pcrlnissiialc 23.21:} in the ervcnt i? it is held in f"z1v0L1s* of the State, pc.I:i:ic)m=:1' has E0 Lirsposié 92:3 1'c:.mz:i11ing 50'?-'E* wiib ;3sjg>;5Q:fii.g11:2tc inieresi as is permissible under lgzw.
An