Karnataka High Court
M/S Amberkar Pre Stressed Products vs The Addl Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 6 August, 2009
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, Aravind Kumar
e We -=-~w« W wm»Ww~m WW WWW W mfiéwrem %~«m%-e mam" W mmwm were mm cement poles and in the course of the activity the entry of the; goods into 10031 area Municipal Area.
2. The assessing ofiicer under cf assessed the tax liability of :hes«eeefee1eri :0 er the table providing for 'jjxaflte 1e~eieb1e< under the provisions of section 3[1"]V%J¢';'¢'=.,z11eI1t figuring at eI1fl'Y"[10} \vas§'~ 5% and on such premise tax eeeeeeeee.
3. Tlie appsfiaigi .--'v4{.i:':1=":"e,*=;1ét:1" had contended that the appellant Was.%cntifl¢§}A';o~§he benefit; cf Explanation--II to this the rates of tax and which V ' ' .§:xpIs:1Vai:i§)1';e as under
-- II' [fang ofthe goods specyied in Natmbers 1 to 10 in the table are brought £31393 local? areafar use or consumption as raw ' x in the manufacture of tobacco product '' V V and liquor, the tax leuiable and ootiectable on such shazi be at the rate specfliied in such seriaf ; numbers.' sw $W'M'lllIi'lh|I( Wtt!A"Q¢W'QQW¥('4hW« Wu wmmmmeuxw-sr"~aa<m"MmwI"'~@ ammrm %z'%vc49*0¢&"!i'%1|'£ wk; mwmmwmznéwmmm ra'"'HW"W mwwwazva would provide that the dealer was entitled to the benefit of exemption finm Ievy of tax under as the purchased goods which had entered. was consumed in the manufactuie of..eeme1it..'po1es:'V-aaada as such was entitled for exempfiop 2 terms. of explanation ---- II to the K
4. This contention the apmllate authority in L491" [copy at Annex:.1re-B]?' short lived as the revisionzfl' powers under section 15 of and restored the assessment order fasteniai1g._ the»'* on the appellant -- deaier in of'othe».','{%lueVofeement brought into locai area at 5% as of the View that explanation ---- I} does not benefit as claimed by the dealer. 'T 31:15 by this order, the present appeal, ' K' .4 Appearing on behalf of the appeliant, Sri. Atui K Aim', Iearmed counsel wouid vehemently urge that the explanation :£.\*'"mmc.sr"*°n uwwaritvi wewwrt assurance had been heid out, the benefit shetfld m extended, no tax sheuid be levied on the entry it
9. While the facts it appears vtc)" be met j relevant period which was the assessing oificer was Even in law, if by subsegueg't"'1tai.§tieation" 'air in the tabie ixadicathag the rateat item should m taxed is om§::e§vweArhe is tax liability an that (iate from an earlier date just Eviiftister had made a budget speech Whatever speech might have Iztade ttie Minister, ultimately, what what of' the speech is translated into us'tat1,;t.dr',z::'pr0;?isie(:)I:. and in what manner. ' (10. of the statutozy provisions, we find no "h"ef§eiit.éas" claimed by the appellant can be extended. The ___""assessment order was right and the Additional wwvwm-w Wm nwm""MmI5'€£:i?"wa&&""ulWI9'"% 1\HE*ru2J!'f€'?§ wwwmw ERMKEWMQWWM 3"¥§§£:'3§'V MQWWW! U3"
Commissioner has rightly restored it, set aside thsoorder passeci by the appellate authoI'ity.
11. While it is true that explanatioixs---. All j '11": so far as the rate of tax lcviabie on , «.s by that explanation is by' consequentially the lgiability' thefi éA'<':t,*'iE'c makes a difference only in the Cass consumed in the manufacttlreof liquor and not in respect of -~ 31 does not in any wayjvfilfér th«s_"Eiéé;ler in temas of the rate as stipulateéi 'i1"1'--thV€: o «' o._1:z. is in TAET No.3 of 2006 which is *.hC1;jebyV d:§.s:r:i:é:st~:<1. Ré: 3 of 2006:
' I13. ;i'hé'ss hsppeals reiate to the iiabiiity for payment of " for the period in question and the arguments by Sri. Atui K Alur, learned counsel for the V' ".ap'pelia3r1ts is already examined in TAFT No.1 of 2006. $/
14. In ierms of the discussion made in the course 0}"
Judgment in TAB'? No.1 of 2006 hereinabova, A "
N032 and 3 (H2006 are alse dismissedf ' ' % " '%%%%% %l}'*ud9e AN]-