Karnataka High Court
M/S Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka Through The ... on 10 June, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH' <;:ou§e*1'c>;e* KARNTAKA AT '- DATED THIS THE 10"" LSAY ~q1uj{Ni:; ' _ PREsgNT'=' 'I'H}:2 H()N'BLE3 .;s21=:§:du$5*'r*ic:j::'j4v;V""i;aQPALA'GOw;>A My *§'H1'::§H::':T.r5fV?3113e£__rv:.g2.;3*U:5+3*i<j:«: MALIMMH
-- _ No.2 01:' 2608 * & M} s.P'€3s1t"x.: Chemicals » (§~:<1ciia) Pv$:.._I;{d., V f'¥;O't1.Sf3, 43* Floor, '-- Pviazkhri Ci1'cV§c,V 1>..B.N::...:3tfJ' Bangsiigre-560 O80.
Rapfesfinted by its V. " C3«::_z1er.é1£ Manager- Fixzance, _ xSri"Sre::c;},hax S.Heg<:'w:, " « S'/"0.Sa'£hya11a1ayan.a Hegcic, Aged about 42 years. PEYFITIONER (By 311 l<;.S.Ramabha(1mn, Acivocate) \\,/ 5ND:
The State of léaniataka, Thrcmgh the Commissioner j A Of Commercial 'Taxes, Karnataka, C/Qmmcmiai 'I'a:-{es 4_Bufld'mv_g; 1*' Floor, Gaxxdhinagar, __ ' Bangalore-£560 U09. ' _ ;.-.-- _Rii)SPQNDE:N'i' This $.'1'.R.P. is uxjlcier --Sect;i{}j1; -23(1) of the K81' Act, against fhe ()K1'€vi' ('§fl:'iftd passad in STA Nos.2941, 2-3-4:3.,294=:3 2947j'20_o.4 on the flit: of the Kaxnataka...11.ppeé}1;1tev Tfiézginai, Bangalore, dismissing the Appeals z«5='11d_..i1§31iioEciiI1gV--T'i'§i§"1é' Ozdeii passed in No.CS'f.A§~'.46, 47, 43 8:. 49 j<:}1:2¢03 ciémcti :zfzgV9-2%:){}4 gaasseci under Section 12--Bf;2)Mbi* :31: Adi; 'i*,Fx'§*~»§§ecti:>x_:j'§3{2B} of the CST Act by the J CC3"I:i(APPEALS}-«.._I$?f};sts;<:¢;-.._§igsmissi11g the appeals petitions and tighoélding the. &)r§f1i:r:sV..:1ated 13-2-2363 passed uxader section' E-?_{2){b) of the Act, r/W Section 123(2) of the Act by the .VDC3C?I'{'ASSEf§S'SMENTS~12)Baz::.ga1ore, for the Asaessment 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002- '. " : n 'V . . . . . ..
~This'«..AS;'I'_.R.P. coming on that admission this day, J. , made the following-
ORUEJME " ' 'H113 Saies Tax Revision Pamion is flied by the assessec 'A"--<;p¥iéé§:t1az11ng the common Judgment passed by the Kamataka ' " ""Ap;pe11aze 'i"rib1m.ai in STA Nos. 2941, 2945 6!» 2947/2004 dated 2993 May, 2007 seeking to set aside the Séélfllc'. V
2. In this revision petition though qucsnons of law are framed bj;; A'tV.I'1'<: . pc1:i§'QIié19._n§'1i3;«' b foliowing quesnons of Law are cxéiragiiacéi by ':1 s*£o«.fi:3;d~..§$utV Whether the same would arise --v1i5r..Qur c":0nsid§f;;t{cjiV:"' " i) Whether on the iacts .~.'1'I1d. 'fiiar; CiI'(':i11}Ci$%t£*;i:IC€S of the case, the Appé:ii§2i{c_ in holdmg the claim of the ._ px-ovislons of Section SQ:-{'.".;;l.:(B'_} oiithei when there: is no <ief§1':§it i£Z--§3v{i)V_o1'E:{hc Act?"
in the cnvtlmstanccs of TI'ib"liI18l was light in Lné' the iower atzthoxitics in the ;mat.ter' Voi' jervjf (Sf iilwmstf penalty upto December ~.\§zI1e1i" t"I:c"pet1t:ioncr had made me payments « V' '~ ._tox§ga17CisV §§a_lcs "fax in the month of -July, 2002, when the ceiling iimlt?
z W hethcr on the flacts and in the circumstances .. 0f*--t:be case. the Appellate Tribunal was right in V' - __ fnoxdmg that the provislon of Section 9~(2ms; of the Act would apyljr to the instant case, as the pI'0V}S101'I has come into eifcct only on 3-5-2007?"
\t\/ in support of the aforesaid questzions of law counsel for the petitioner placed reiianee on fer the Assessment Year 19899-2(}£}t)»--vs{he3j'ei1_1V'4"it*V:.j;s that if default is committed " o:t'":'Tin accolflance with sub-Secfien{'~1.)V ofA"':Tt1eVVVSeetio1'17' beyond 10 days, after the CXpJiI}§'r'..Of7.,_fl1C in that sub-Section. the the Department by way of penalty a te_&i'l;e" speeflied under Clauseiu} 1:9 and also placed
-'of the £381' Act which reads tt1us:-- " V .
' the sex' fisyafiie by any dealer under this Act is " net page 1:; the cieaier shai} be liabie to pay fer delayed payment of such tax anti all £he«V"proteisiens ibr delayed payment of such tax and fimvisions reiating to due date for payment oftsx, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax AA assessment and eoiiection of interest for delayed payment of tax, of the genera} sales tax Law of each Stafe, shall appiy in relation to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest Ibr deiayed payment of tax, and assessment and oollecticm of interest for delayed payment of tax under thls Act \/ in such Staies as if the tax and the .< payable under this Act. were a tax under Silch saies tax law."
Placing reliance neon the _ the eotmsei fer the petitioner uI9ejeet10n'VOi'° the claim of the petgeogmr da{ic'::'AA13:2~2u03 and issuing the demand 2{i3)if23) of l{S'l" Act read with to the petitioner ievymg of [__-'i'1'i3o11 the tax amount fer
-1..999w.2000, 2000-01. 2901-02 and 2002-03 " of penalty of Rs.2.58,48"f[~ ,,i2_;f3?"1_;;a34/ }<s.§:7,38e/~ Iespectively is un't':e11abie in law. 'A of interest and penalty upon the petitioner V"T.aseee:é'§ee__ é;$"V'.sx7ithe1:t Iecorciing a funding mgarding the 'szppigcabgixty of Seeturm 9(1ZB) of the Act to the iaets of the A. ,{Case.*' w The said findmg is errozaeously afiizxned by the 18* '*a13pell.ate Clourl: and the 'l'ribt1na1 by dismxssmg the appeals without appreciating the claim ef the peuiioner properly and therefore he submfis that the same is bad in iaw and habit:
to be ssei aslcie. Fzlzther, it 13 contended by the learned 'm/ counsei that the finding of the "Tribunal at its order, wherein ii is held that the be'-T":;1 comnutfcd by the petitioner T upon the peuuoner W1th0L11:_exaI:G1nii3.g thc»..ég1:e's{1ori. éis Vii} whetner Section 112(B)(2} of Acfi 'xeéd ?;i.:;:ri{ Secuofi 9(i2)(B) of C18'? Act wbujd 3,5913; -33;; 'fig; casE: i«Vhér€ any tax liability is Eldiiiiitttid by monthly rctums.
3. VNViT.EI14"IV"(?f(EIt3I?;('?VéV'vt(;-'.V::f.!1_{;f3"é;§3QV=3- iegai contfintions we h:*;gvc--.exa3§J;z1§3ti' of the "i'I7ib1ma_l impugned in this Revisiofi 1:0 find out whether any one of 'vqtiestioiza imtérmd to above would ansé Iiaer our , 'vgonsiiisraticn and answer the same in favour of the ._ 'v.T.fi'i'i't3 'l'r.ibuna1, with IftfCI'6I1CE to H16 iflacts ané d€c2s3_s31:-fii" the Supreme Court in the case of Mjs. i:).i.L). .. Pa mym' Ltd. vs. ASSlS'I'AN'I" C()MMiSSiONER er' "--..V1"(:--:.>'rv1MERc;AL 'mxiszs, CHENNAI Iepoficd m 11:? S'I'€.3 457' has held that the provisions of Section 12{B)(i3) of 131:: Act woulé appiy only when there is dc-fauit under Seaman 12(B){}.) of Thfi Am. 1116 leamed counsel i e§uoner :11 the Judgment passed by as in the conneeteei"*.eS'§'RP No.1/£2008 filed by the same petfizioner. recorded therein hoids good for this caee the q11est:ions of law framed above; fequiifed-:i0TV:be_a;1s§Vered against the assessee. The '}'r1buna:1'.i1é13_ co-ne11rrente findmg of the 1" ozdef by assigning reasons and the assessee, that it is not liable to fee tax amount due to me Depaxfiment ';fi11ten:ehgie Title Assessing Auttzelitjs authority on appreczatzton of evidenee izaiirejected the claim of the pehfioner anggi' fzae.tenedV"t}1_e liability, in View of the undisgguted fact that eeeeseeev ciid not pay the tax to the Uepartment by A fifvxetuxns. The said finding offact. is affirmed by beta the authorities in exercise of their power and x jizxisdieiion and thereiem in our considered view no ' Viguestions of Law as refemed to above would arise for our fcensifieration in this Revision Petifion. Further, the bonafide behef of the petitioner that the above referred Notificatzen is not applicable to the ease of the petitioner is whoiiy \¢'\/ untcnablc in law. Hence this Revision Pcfitindxj' Hf':
dismissed as the 33- me is df'3V(3i(1 {>if '1im:If_it;-s3 iii'. is dismissed.
Tuage