Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M/S.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd on 1 July, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT 0%' KARNATAKA AT ~
DATED TEES THE is: DAY OF' JULY, 25:; 2].:
PRESS}?-f""' - A_ ' V
THE HONBLE MR. JzjsT:c:;'i3 '*3:..'.'§'~3°."V ~
THE HONBLE 1y:R.JU$T§Vi::2_PzA§;£ n}iAL:a4A:§H
V V C¥F :'2QO'}'
BETWEEN
L THE s'm*1:'Et':Q,F
RI:3P"BY_ j1i:;1E SE£CRE'fARY
FINANCE' };.'rE:?ARTMEN'f « .
BZ\;?\?G./§.LQRE~. . ._ N. PETITIONER.
{By Sri. 5}-§'R5gi;{()Q1'_s*wzi\.r«ir?i?. GOVT. ADV.)
k %%%%%
.2 Q = --. u3v:,€s;}:0ff'g§§ MAHINDRA PRIME LTD
' NQ,"2Q,"3}'{D ..FLOOR, UNIWORTH PLAZA
~. "'--§:¥ANf~L'3;Y ROAD, PALACE GUETAHALLI
' ._BAi\§GA1;;C>RE:w20.
RESPONEENT.
., :$1.:fi. :?<:';: KAMATH & KAMATH Assfsq Anvgg
THIS STRP ES FILED UNDER SECTECJN 553} SF "IRE
* %{;{RNAT¥§KA 'VELLEE ADDED 'FAX ;x<:*"§, AGA§§S'§' "mg:
')
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 1932,2009 PASSED IN
STA NO833/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNEX-TARA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE. ALLOXMNQ THE
APPEAL EHLED UNSER 'ma; PROVEflON$ (XV THE
KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED 'I'A§( ACT, 2003.
THEa$TRp,eowflmecxvFeR;%NALteeQafie,TH§y*
DAY, SABHAHIT J MADE THE FQVLLGWENCQ: .3
0RnEfije
This appeal is filed by
by the order gappeiiate
Tribunal whereifz jvyvfiie respondent
Challenging V Reifisional Authority has been {fie respendent herein is entieieei Wzeeiief permissibie under Seetion 18 Gf Value Added Tax Act, 2003 an:1_{:h'e3:eby seteeseide "the erder passed by the Revisienai fidnatved 2i~§.G3.2C}O'?' and reetared the Order 1".§",*2QC{5'V..passed by the As-sieiant Cemmissiener V. of "?{'f0n'iet.:efeiaE Taxes under Rule 2663') age the K V.Ve.V§*e5:~;;>.enfi'ente was greeted benefit: of adjustment if {he 3 amounts as indicated in Form VAT 27% dated 3.8___._2005 issued therein.
2. The material facts of the ease r:eC_efS3:«:.:;r3{f3: the ._ disposal of this appeal are as foi§'::<'3WS:i:_ ' ; T he respondent herein is a regie*:ere:'1V.:i'iA:r::a1ei' tiif1e§'e:* the Karnataka Value Addeéfi (hereinafter cafied Act'). An _c1ai%eieg benefit:
under Section__18 C>f._ that the appiicant seiiesi value added tax on the Ieased for the period from eed wherefore, in View of the trafisétexjxz Section 18, the applicant is »e;r§n:it].e«.'i Vt{:.__ benefii of the said prevision. The §x:%s;:e::si':i§2} Qffieer, after verification of the copy of the ef the years 2603434 and 2SQ4-€25, :he"""ar:-::ms.i.V' aeceunie ef the year 2Q€J4~§5, steak .e,V:s':a%_eme%1£ and purchase irzveiee eepiesg granied the 4 reiief avaflabie under Section 18 of the transitional provisions under Secfiem 188(7) of the }{arnata§~:e,_ Vua}1e;e Added Ruies, 2005 by erder daied 1.a.2ee5,A-L ~ 3110 mete revisienal powers _W'€1,'_€ e3:e19eis§ed VV Seetien €>3»A of the Act by the:":.I0i§f§t'*. Commereia} Taxes, Bangalere a:1"'<'1_ by Vveriie':"*~»;iated"
24.03.2007? the Reviszienal order passed by the Assessi'f1éa_.'OfEi_e§eVfv benefit under Section 18 ef 'eetaaside and the assessee ie under Section 18 of the Ace.» byeevthie said order passed by the h of Commercial Taxes, {AdministVfati013)V,"._[}i%fisiei'1a} Vat Offiee~1, Bangalore, ~"'~._v_app:ea1 fiiea ----- -«before the Karnataka Appellate asseesee and the Tribunal, by order €i.ate i:iA heid that the esrcier passed by the V.,Revieie:1a1 Auiheriij; Ea erreneeus as the benefii under ES baa biififl rightly' graeied E3 the aaeeseee by 1?';
ft rrzultbpoini revision tax has been imposed under the Act and therefore, question of giving 21:1}; deduction _.o'~oe:::._::.ot: arise. He further submitted that even a.ss2}1'z1:§:Arig'f'é1*1T;i§:~--f.e * Section 18 is applicable, since fl'_1€E'£i_'f_iS no :9e'eé::»1e"'of =t;h'e_ V vehieie and there is only 1ease;'1«'hé_%i1ig 1:'eg'ar»:i: provisions of Section 11 'the Ae'£.,_ thevv~§3*fo§?isioh of "
Section 18 would nofibe ap;:--1-2'e:gbie..?'s.neI' file. Revisionai Authority, after detai1"eoi«' heid that the respondent is Section 18 of fhé Act setting aside the said Afheeveebenefit granted by the Assessing "Qffieef,~ %ee2'.ro:<3ee%;g:1s. 454'; _Leafn'e:;i_ eVouIise1 appearing for the respondent ifxai admittedly the respondent - assessee 3:38-{'_pai'(,§. s~2;1esf'Eex and also value added tax under the V _ Ae1: i'r: 1*es.pe'et of vehieies purchased ané Eeased fiuring .e}§he.es§eriVoeé from 354.2004 to 3i.Q3.2QQ5 and since in '€i€W' of the texensiiionai pI"€)ViSiO}'Z3 appliiebie e};§__:i"<}. C peried, an application was ffieei 30;, Section 18 ef the Act wherefore was justified in allowing the _app1iL?z3i{ien benefit. A3 the said benef'i*Ee»V:jW»:3,5§ a\.}'i:2§V1e"£3}"e far 9. limited period the assessee had been and value added tax and has not claimed to the period order passed by the TribuI i'2gI passed by the Aesessing Officer b$?"'«.$€'E{i1;}'g' the order of the Revisienal V. A_ AUV_ii%;:Q§j:y', was justified.
5. Wee have given earefui eonsideratien tie the eenteneiene ef the Eearned eeuneel appearing fer bet}:
":he'f:ar'5:ies and scrutinized the In ateriai 0:} record.
5' 2 E3. The material on record weuld cleariy fact that {ha respondent ~ assessee has _ an the vehicies purchaséd and has 31:5-G.--a:.g1:,1;é added tax on the feasts: fransaciéan ;w'tj.:i<:}"1,.is.. eifeezfiegi be at 'Saks' under the AC1: is -not ii3.V_CEé.<3pu:é; .Ij{<3xV§:Véf. _ appliszatien of the agsessee b€I1€fi3L under S€3:'C'Ci0f1 18 of for the period from material on record w<:>u41_:E._: absence of the disputg' regard to the dOCL1I1fi_ €VfI1€'§_A ragporxdent - assesses and the 'eéséésment fer the year 20()3~O4 and';2OQ4~O.E3,"» accounts for ths year 2003-04, 'Stock $!i;:J,_ei:1_er1t and purchase invoice C0pi€8, thce £\s;'§ sfs-.si1:§~V,,_OffiCér passed the Ci}:'d€F gframiing benefit ¥;iI1&i3E{' Esééti/i§':nV 18 of the Act and the same was §€V€FS€d : E;§g7,}_'th€""Rsvéewing Authority by hslding' that the f:3ép::§33der:%: is not €§}'fEfi€G is ihs said bEE'i1€fii, whisk has M12 g T first day 0'? April, 2004 and used znanufaeture or resale? at the daie ef 'V' ' commencement of this Ac?/, .
prescribed.
?. Admittedly, the asSe-seee~Vfes:be:1de§fi;A..;has." géaid tax under the Sales Tax -:;»E_1e" of the vehiele on lease and been paieé for the periecia. and therefore, in question is eo1rere<:1 §:;_§f eannot be disputed. passed by the Tribunal which is Va:..:t}*1--:_3:ri'é::?* en the question of fact that ..:_he has" assigned eesgent reasons for restoring '-gtheé}:s:*der: 'ef"tfie~"Assessing Officer by setting aside the oreyee paseezii 'by the Revieienai Authority which was befezfe the T:'ibu;:1a§€ Feiiewing 'the decision ef <.I;g;;g}%:%:§9e*b1e Supreme cam: in Jzeeeege NANBHAI perversity in the: <:§nsiCierati011 of the was E1016 that the appeal is devoid of follewing' ord€:':
. n1aié:*£a§ (Z?.1': '1"€"€?{}1"'~:?1, " "
Revision Petition is €iism:is;§éd." « '_ -« _ ?::§§§ %%%% gézé KS T *:'eriE:. _2£'nCi pV:':.§éLr;2« iifxé