TVS ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the assessee, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, dated 12th April 2004, which has been affirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore on 7th March 2006, in S.T.A. No. 2407 of 2004. The dispute is in regard to the assessment year 1997-1998.

(2.) The petitioner assessee is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) set up in the year 1995. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the Government under No. FD 32 CSL 96 (V) dated 15th November 1996, it purchased certain raw materials to be used for the manufacture of its products from a registered dealer and tax was not paid on the purchase made by it from the registered dealer since it is a 100% EOU in the manufacture of goods for exports. The revenue did not grant the exemption on the ground that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Notification in as much as the petitioner assessee had sold a portion of the finished product in domestic market, without exporting all the goods manufactured by it as required under the Notification, contending that Clauses (i) to (iii) are violated by the petitioner assessee, and the exemption granted to it was withdrawn. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, which appeal came to be dismissed. A second appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the assessee having contravened the clauses of the Notification was not entitled for the benefit. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner's counsel before us is that the Department has committed a serious error in not considering the case of the assessee properly and on account of improper interpretation of the Notification dated 15th November 1996, the relief has been denied to the assessee, not only by the Department, but also by the two appellate authorities. In the circumstances, he contends that the assessee is entitled for the relief of all the orders which are required to be set aside.