Karnataka High Court
Mr. A N Viswanatha vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 28 July, 2011
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 28" DAY OF JULY 2031 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 5. ABDUL NAZEER. WRIT PETITION NO. 5102 (20.1 Te i RES } 7 | BETWEEN: Mr. A.N. Viswanatha S/o. Mr. GLK. Nanjundatah Aged about 42 years wee TB, R/a. Flat No. 16, ishwa'Amirtith Apartments 3"¢ B Main Road, Talakavéry Layout Amruthahalli, Bangalore-560 062... PETITIONER (By Sri. Ra ayappa. Hadag alt, "Ady. _ for M/s..Dua Assts..Advs.) ~ AND: , Fhe © ort Wnissioner of Commercial Taxes Commercial Tax Department "Katidas: 4 Road, Gandh i Nagar Bangalore'. ~ 860 009 .. RESPONDENT . (By SH. AK. Vedamurthy, HCGP) fe fe ofa ht SO aes SUE eee a ee This writ petition is fled under Articles 226 anc the Constitution of India Por Ar praying to communication dated 4.3.9010 as per Annexure- ly. the) Aand ete: quas curing "RB in this case. the petitioner has challenged the legality/validity of the endorsement at -Annexure-A dated 4.3.2010 issue by the Commissioner ol Commercial Tax rejecting his applice von seeking refund of ite tax. 2. . The comlendor:. of the petitioner is that he had entered info an agreement of 'sale as per Annexure-B dated 18.6.2009 with one Sri. KI Sanath for purchase of the " property described in Séhedule +c' of the said agreement. Therealter,. KT. Sanath executed a sale deed as per Annexure-C dated 13.8.2009 in respect of the said property Un fay four of the petitioner. It is contended that K.T. Sanath had deposited a sum of 7.2, towards tax under the provision of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 Yor ae f . i a i E 4 5. As noticed above, the petitioner has purchased the property in question for a total consideration. of. *.50,42.400/- which is clear from the "Sale "deed al. Arinexure-C, The contention pulforth by. ' he petitions. is that the agreement at An nexure-B shows iat "the "said amount of £.50,42 400/- is inchisive of the aloresaid tax amount. Section 47{4) ofthe Act "states. Lnat where any amount is paid or recovered by . or from arly 'd ealer under sub-section (1) or Sh, 'at refund' of such 'amount or any part thereof can be claiined 'oni Covernmenit by the person from whom, it was realized by way or tax provided an application in writing in 'the: prescribed form is made to the Commissioner: within we: years from the date of the order of , torfeitaive. On recel pe ef any such application, the "Commissioner shall hold such inquiry as he deems fit and if the 'voinmissione: iS Satished that the claim is valid and admissible,-and that the amount so Claimed as refund is actually. paid or recovered, he shail refund the amount or ea any part thereof. which is concerned, 6. Itis not the case off as defined under the Act. There is: m0 material Of. record to Show that the petitioner has deposit ted. We. 2. 37,772 f- with the respondent towards tax. Ag we xure- DD is'a receipt issued by the vendor of the petitioner, which shows that he has collected a sum of 2.377737. tow ards tax from the petitioner, However, the: p titioner has | not deposited the said amount vhs the lep ariment. Therefore, he is not entitled for refund « of. the amount. winder section 47(4) of the Act. In my oe pinion, the respondent WS right in r ejecting the application: of the petitioner seeking refund of the said a s uM Ba MARS & amount, ~ "There oan Fo nerit in this writ petition. -- Tt is Ss ACCOI ding ¥ dismis sed. No costs. found due to the person Jhe petitioner Lat heisa dealer. ae or oe ............
i Be