Karnataka High Court
M/S Maltex Fashions Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 22 February, 2016
Bench: Jayant Patel, S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA
STA NO.98 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
M/s. Maltex Fashions Pvt.Ltd.
No.783, 11th Cross,
4th Phase, Ganapathinagar,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore - 560058.
...Appellant
(By Smt.Vani.H, Advocate)
AND:
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Vanijya Terige Karyalaya, III Floor,
Gandhi Nagar,
Bangalore - 560009.
...Respondent
(By Sri.T.K.Vedamurthy, HCGP)
2
This STA is filed Under Section 66(1) of Karnataka
Value Added Tax Act, 2003, against the order dated
25.06.2012 passed in No.CLR.CR.214/11-12 on the file
of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka),
Bangalore, clarifying that as per entry 30 of third
schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
"Narrow Fabrics" are liable to tax at 5%.
This Appeal coming on for further orders this day,
JAYANT PATEL J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Appeal is admitted. Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent for admission.
2. With the consent of the learned Advocate appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.06.2012 issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Annexure 'A'), whereby he has 3 clarified that for the product "Narrow Fabrics", the liability to pay tax shall be at 5%.
4. We may record that after the aforesaid clarification, the appellant also moved the Commissioner for review of the clarification contending inter alia that in past, in respect of the very product clarification dated 03.03.2008 was issued, whereby no tax was leviable since it was found to be exempted for the purpose of tax. However, the Commissioner vide order dated 14.05.2013 found that he has no power for review and hence the said order of the Commissioner is also challenged in the present appeal.
5. We have heard Ms.Vani H., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue.
4
6. As such, for the very product there are two clarifications:
One dated 03.03.2008 and another dated 25.06.2012. As per the earlier clarification dated 03.03.2008 for the very product of "Narrow woven fabrics", no tax was found to be leviable and it was exempted from tax. Whereas, in the second clarification dated 25.06.2012, it is found by the Commissioner that tax is leviable at the rate of 5%.
7. Under these circumstances, it was a case where the matter was required to be considered by the Commissioner. It is true that at the relevant point of time, the person manning office of the Commissioner in 2008 may be different and in the year 2012, but when the power is exercised in capacity as the Commissioner may be a different person, more particularly, when the Department is the same, it was a matter where such 5 aspects were required to be considered, upon the request made by the appellant for review of the clarification. As in the present case, the application has been rejected only on the ground the Commissioner has no jurisdiction. We find that it would be a fit case to remand the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the clarification and thereafter he may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure 'A1') passed by the Commissioner, whereby the review of clarification is rejected on the ground of no jurisdiction. It is further observed and directed that the application dated 05.12.2012 of the appellant shall stand restored to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. He shall examine the matter in light of the observations made by this Court in the present order and shall pass appropriate 6 orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-