Karnataka High Court
M/S Repromen Offset Printers Pvt. ... vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 21 November, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
W.P.Nos.10233-244/2016 (T-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S. REPROMEN OFFSET PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. V. KRISHNA MOORTHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PLOT No.125A, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 099.
...PETITIONER
(BY Mr. MANJUNATH B.K, ADVOCATE FOR
Mr. M.N. SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA
1ST MAIN ROAD, KALIDASA MARGA
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-4.3)
VAT DIVISION-4, 4TH FLOOR, A BLOCK
VTK-2, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 047.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY Mr. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CLARIFICATION DATED 25-10-2009 AT ANNEX-H ISSUED BY R-
1 WITH RESPECT TO "POSTERS" CLARIFYING THAT THE RATE
Date of order 21-11-2017 W.P.Nos.10233-244/2016
M/s. Repromen Offset Printers Pvt.Ltd., Vs.
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr.
2/5
OF TAX IS 12.5% AS ON THAT DAY U/S 4(1)(b) OF THE KVAT
ACT, IN THE PETITIONER'S CASE & ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. Manjunath B.K. Adv. for Mr. M.N. Shankare Gowda, Adv. for Petitioner. Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA for Respondents.
Both the learned counsels jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of the petitioner-assessee itself in STA No.14/2015 (M/s.Repromen Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd. -vs- The State of Karnataka) upholding the impugned order of clarification passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department and repelling the contention of the petitioner-assessee that the 'Posters and Vinyl Hoardings' sold by him would be taxable under Entry 71 of the Third Schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his Order dated 25.10.2009 vide Date of order 21-11-2017 W.P.Nos.10233-244/2016 M/s. Repromen Offset Printers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr. 3/5 Annexure-H has clarified that it will be taxable under Residuary Entry @ 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b) of the KVAT Act.
2. The relevant portion of the Division Bench in the case of the petitioner-assessee is quoted below for ready reference:
"9. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted that all printing materials are included in the entry irrespective of the material on which the printing is made, the resultant effect would be that the other entries would be redundant. For example, printed garments, printed sarees, printed wall papers and various other printed items though may be falling in the respective entries, would be rendered otiose. In the interpretation of an entry in a taxing statute even if the meaning understood in commercial parlance is considered, then also, the items which are included in Entry No.71 cannot encompass the items of printed banners and hoardings. In all respects, the items which are included in Entry No.71 are altogether different from that of the items of the appellant for which the rates are prescribed by the Advance Ruling Authority by way of a clarification.
Date of order 21-11-2017 W.P.Nos.10233-244/2016 M/s. Repromen Offset Printers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr.4/5
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant did contend that the Advance Ruling Authority has not examined the matter in detail nor has examined the item in depth by recording reasons and therefore this Court may interfere.
11. In our view, when we are not satisfied even after examining in detail that the Entry No.71 can be applied to the products or the items which are being dealt with by the appellant, no useful purpose would be served by examining the matter on the ground that there is no detailed discussion or examination by the Advance Ruling Authority.
12. Learned Counsel for the appellant did rely upon a decision of this Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. reported at (2000) Vol. 120 Sales Tax Cases page 564 and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Limited Vs. State of Karnataka reported at 2001 (Vol. 121) Sales Tax Cases 510 (P.517). However, considering the facts in the case before the Apex Court as well as before this Court, in the aforesaid decisions and the facts of the present case, we do not find that those decisions can be applied in the present case, as sought to be canvassed. Hence, the said decisions Date of order 21-11-2017 W.P.Nos.10233-244/2016 M/s. Repromen Offset Printers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr.5/5
are of no assistance to the learned Counsel for the appellant.
13. In view of the above, we do not find any case for interference. Hence, the appeal is meritless and is dismissed."
3. In view of the above fact, the present writ petitions are also dismissed in the same terms. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL