Karnataka High Court
M/S Southern Motors vs State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2012
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H. G. Ramesh
W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. G. RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos. 21777-21793 OF 2012 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SOUTHERN MOTORS
#63, ST. MARK'S ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI V.P.THIRUVENGADA SWAMY ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.K.V. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES IN KARNATAKA
VANIJYA TERIGE BHAVANA
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
(AUDIT-1. 6), VAT DIVISION-1
7TH FLOOR, VTK BUILDING
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.K. VEDAMURTHY, GOVERNMNET PLEADER)
W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012
-2-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS BOTH DATED 21.5.12 PASSED BY THE R3, VIDE ANN-
M & N RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Heard. On being asked by the Court as to the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State vs. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. [2011(71) Kar.L.J.234 (HC)(DB)], the appeals will be dismissed and accordingly, requested this Court to consider the matter on merits. Hence, I examined the matter on merits.
W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012 -3-
2. These Writ Petitions are directed against the two rectification orders, both dated 21.5.2012 produced as Annexures - M & N.
3. The Assessing Officer has rectified the assessments for the period from April 2007 to March 2008 and from April 2008 to August 2008 in accordance with Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 ('the Rules' for short). Rule 3(2)(c) provides for allowing of the discount given to the customer as allowable deduction provided the tax invoice or the sale bill shows the amount allowed as discount. In this matter, the rectification is made by disallowing the discount offered by the petitioner to its customers on the ground that the tax invoices or the sale bills did not show the discounts offered. This factual aspect is not in dispute.
W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012 -4-
4. It is relevant to refer to Rule 3(2)(c) of the Rules which read as follows:
"3. Determination of turnover.― (1) The total turnover of a dealer, for the purposes of the Act, shall be the aggregate of.― ...............................................................
...................................................... (2) The taxable turnover shall be determined by allowing the following deductions from the total turnover.―
(a) ................................................
(b) ................................................
(c) All amounts allowed as
discount:
Provided that such discount is allowed in accordance with the regular practice of the dealer or is in accordance with the terms of any contract or agreement entered into in a particular case and the tax invoice or bill of sale issued in respect of the sales relating to such discount shows the amount allowed as discount; and W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012 -5- Provided further that the accounts show that the purchaser has paid only the sum originally charged less discount.
(d)..................................................................... ........................"
(Emphasis supplied) Validity of the above Rule is upheld by this Court in the petition filed by this very petitioner in Southern Motors v. Stage of Karnataka [2008(65) Kar. L. J. 321 (HC)] which is also referred to by the Division Bench in Kitchen Appliances.
5. In my opinion, the impugned rectifications is in conformity with the Rule referred to above. However, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the Writ Petitions relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., rendered in STRP No.119/2008 [2010(68) Kar.L.J 337 (HC) (DB)], a copy of which is produced as Annexure - B. He W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012 -6- submitted that the rectification orders are contrary to the said judgment. It is relevant to state that a Division Bench of this Court in State vs. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. (2011(71) Kar.L.J.234 (HC)(DB)) after noticing the above judgment in Reliance Industries (which is relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these Writ Petitions) and after specifically referring to Rule 3(2)(c) of the Rules, has held as follows:
"14. Therefore, the tax invoice issued in respect of sales must show disclose the amount of discount that is being offered. It is an admitted fact that no such discount has been shown in the tax invoice. That the discount offered is subsequent to the raising of the tax invoice.
15. On facts, we are of the view that in terms of the proviso to Rule 3(2)(c), until and unless the discounts are shown in the tax invoice, the assessee is not entitled to any relief. In the instant case, W.P. Nos.21777-21793/2012 -7- the same is absent. Hence, it is evident that the view of the Tribunal requires to be set aside as being contrary to the proviso to Rule 3(2)(c)."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. In my opinion, the rectification orders are in accordance with Rule 3(2)(c) of the Rules and the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. referred to above. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned rectification orders to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitions dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BNS/ata.