Karnataka High Court
M/S Bates India Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2009
xx T!-IE men councr or mmawmm arr ~ H HATED THIS THE 3RD DAY or '=7 "
'i'f£~IE IiON'BLE MR. J'US'I'ICE " ' STIR? N0.32}:2z}o7 ms I-3:o1~rm.1-3 JIIs'"'1'I(..'§E_ 'flacmizaa s . r.k§;p; 24.924312/é'VbA7'% , gmwgszxz _ M/S gA':'1:;4siIj;§;}:>1;: Ef'f_I'*1,T1'}--.:' V FoRmiERmv»KNowN'--A.sA * M/S c:=Me:<::::~; mnvswxsxszg s'e:1:s"v:cE:3 LTI%:.",- NC)~._1"-1 1, GAMTSH TOWERS 1'NFANTR&'v:RQ_AD, - _ * BANGALOREr0'-1..
REPTD Bvmfs - '~ AUTHQRESE£).SIC';NA'F;©R':' SR} K S'L_AKSIw1MA'NAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS <'S:;A'-O SR} K R S§*i'E'sfAR3\411, KRISHNA EYER ...PETYf'IONER fg'Bf§.% Sri K S RAMABADRAN, Am. FOR S§?i.G.SARANC§AN,SEN1OR ADV.) ANDH THE S'§A*:*E or? KAIQNATAKA '3T§~I_'§;OUGH THE COMMESSEOENR OP' COMMERCIAL TAXES, §<IARNATAi{£'k, V ">CC}MME:I€ECAL TAXES SUILIHNCE Isa FLOGR, GANDHENAGAR, BANGALQRE 566009 RESPGNSENT {By Smt S-SUJATHA, GOV'? ADVGCATE ABSENT} \/ U) $'£'Ri> NO.32f2§£3?
3. "file following substantial q{16Sti€}E1$"..}l'&'O11l€1 arise:
(1) Whether on the facts {;1z:d__i;1 » of the C€:l.S€, the Appellate l to hold that there is a'-.:1'émsfer».::f t;i)r{)pe1"t'yl ii} goods to the petitjfizisr from and also fmm the p€:t:ii;i(ll§1é%r"'t{} thle" ':'31.1.St<§l3:1er so as to _ce.§~_1'1csipuVz§3i0:f1vl litnat there are two Sales? ll 2 ll (2) _fa£ét:§_al1f1fidHlr1 the circumstances V ____ of ,P..§§)ellé3t¢ Tribunal was right in J _ the petitiener carries an that there is £10 dispute abaut 2 i21Tievvfz«:1<:'{".? S ' otherl l§1_:'€::?f.i0flS are all similar to qussitians (1) V therefore, they are 1101: extractad here.
4, l leamad Senior counsel appearing 01}. behalf of tl1::j_l'1~pe:titi0ner herein quastiarzed the correctness cf finding Z'6C{}I'dEid by the Karnaézaka Appellate U ___5TI*ibuI1al, cancmmé by Q16 fii'St Appeliate Authoriigr and aggieved with the §% the Secaflcl Appellate STRP NO.32*'.'-{Q07 doing business, supplyfiag all the mategjieie' -.:"ej'1.ike beoklets, eaieneaxs, diaries eta, to its ~ (:1.1s*;<__i3;r:ezV%,$}' therefere, it is liable to pay « Qfier .; Department.
5. Further, it is eofiteiicied th.a_t"Athe 'é>;fei:4esaid materials are not .e121y onvvihev basis of the I'€(2fL1§.Si¥Li0I1 made These cards have been customers that does nete--ec;'::i":e'.'sifieihiiiviiley'defieirien of the dealer for the purpoee of eernee witlizin the Service Act and thisV ~}j.eae r:eV1:7._ Considered by eitller the £&ut1ie'1*it§z...«'or the First Appellate Authelity or fifierefere, the findings reeerded in paragraph the.i;{fi_p;i1g1ed order is not only erreneous but also V._S11ff€1"i3VfIT§¥I1 error in Zaw. Therefore, the ieamed Senier submits that me decision in M/S. Imagie K Creative Pv"t.Lt:d., wherein the Apex Court has examined the entire case law rendered by the eenetitutieilai Bench j\1%1i6'Lgn/"pnf with reference {.0 clause ~_,] smp E\§Oe32?.2"3G?
29A in Articie 366, and other various C}'£~311S€":3..~«~'..);"j»,-"_"§'__;":t4}'5' 44th alnendfilfiili ta the Constitution <L::i'_ ' %._tpt3y ' apglicabkt to the facts situation. substamtiai questions of law has"'1*,o'be ,»3i'.;:w:Vére§1 E1:
favour of the petitioner assesgé-:'r:% _
6. With refei;¢§f1~$¢ .vLti1e_:}V.V, '§b§3ve legal COIIECHHOBS urged by .Mr ._ camfufiy examined the said legal content§Q;:{s--.,1V_ vV§§,1:V':1feVV';)etitj0x1er are Ifigally"
tanablflj in -A -findings recorded by the Assessi:ig~- points are required to be ansu§ei*eL?* agéimst 31$ peiitjener assesses: fer the ' ' V _ fofiayvixlg masans.
r If: the categozical finding of fact recorded g by £19363 A;V$séé.:si11g Autharity an the basis 9:" the statament W9? Gbjecfiens filed for the propasiiion notices issued by gig; "Assessing Autherity after $16 liberty giver: ta '4 étssessee by this Court in the eariier W1"i1'i petition filed by it in WP N0.1096 and 9'7/1995 dated 3.1.}§9'?, this \/ < _tI1'7':L_4i:*fi'£ifio.{;er goods supplied by the petitioner t'£e:) iTt3_cL1éé;i:§1z1:§é:'1*:s would establish that petitioner is liable .,Vinvoice s 1raised by the ciealer petitianer cz.:.:1:11pa11y inciude ;;:;¢ H "@3031: af atppiying the material, the Agency' Qémmission, saies tax, total E1}I'I"1{)Vfi1" elemeflt as well. V' Therefore, the specimen of the invoices raised by the STEP 3-:o.32;'2e9*:
the sales tax was collected and paid to the Commarcial Tax Officer, 2031 Circle, Bangalore.
extracted:
Bil} No. Amount L.
5058 1070 42*,%84 '
5310 25194}-~._% V
5342 130%"-._ '§'z':.20'
5276
5440 41.63
5308 '5'()3-- 20.10
---- .vba'$:is_ Of eibove said detaiis, the Asses$i--z_"1g" to the right conclusion and held the t1¢'t;3§}S of the documrtants seized from tfi_:t§é;i__<§iver tax to the Department. Therefore, the petitianer also extracted am tha $31216 are W£i)I"thWhilE: to \m/ STEP 3x§<:;.32§,é{iz€s?
of legal evidence on record. We are in ;'1*<:$f;:a§i'ii';_;i agreement with the COIICUITSIIE finding £2?» -§'afi:'i.VVré(§}:3rCied" ' by the Appellate Authczrity as :a;he - 'GD materials and thcit accoufits*bo:;ks énd the T:s;s'é,:=1;;."i:0;,1_s c»j;hér : materials referred to in the 0zj§:{er:_o§_Assé'$«Siiig Cifficer by the mteuigence wing t.h£:_ L S.ga}_e§'-.§};3§:'V(iepartm€nt; and the same has lf3é:€__11 rig'§1*:}'.jg,{fc:(V>:":;f;'1_1_f3,".<é;éi the KAT, W6 do not f1r:c:1"a_i=:y 156380;"; .tgVi1ats_0c§§'r'ar, to interfere with the
9." For t}1e4.':*:§34;-s;c3i:*1s"stated supra, the questions framed us _d{>"no€'; 3I'TiS€: for our consideratioxz. The p<%.£it3Z0f: G{§§n1isseci as devoid of merit.
S&/-é;
Iuége PP'; Ck