SNC POWER CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Snc Power Corporation Private Limited
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click here to view full judgement.
M.D. Jain, J. -
(1.) THESE twelve appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act') against the common order dated 15 -5 -2010 in Case Nos. KVAT.AP.1615 to 1626/2009 -2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals -1), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Authority' - 'FAA' for short), allowing the appeals filed for the tax periods of April 2008 to December 2008, February and March 2009 and partly allowing the appeal filed for the period of January 2009, and wherein these appeals were filed against the endorsement dated 1 -1 -2010 issued under the KVAT Act, 2003 for the tax periods of April 2008 to December 2008 and January, February and March 2009 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LVO -020, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessing Authority - 'AA' for short). The details of tax period, date of filing of return, service tax etc., are as under:
(2.) SINCE these appeals are filed against the orders of the FAA and the issues involved in these appeals are similar, these appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal in brief are as under:
The appellant is a Private Limited Company registered under KVAT Act, 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
The appellant is engaged in the business of construction and executing works contract. The appellant has opted for composition scheme of tax under Section 15 of the KVAT Act. The appellant filed monthly returns for the tax periods April 2008 to March 2009 declaring taxable turnover liable to tax without deducting the service tax component from the total consideration received. Hence the appellant filed corrected revised returns for the said tax periods after deducting the service tax component from the total consideration.
The appellant submits that he filed the corrected revised return and requested the AA to issue refund of the excess tax paid by mistake. However, the AA rejected the claim and issued endorsement dated 1 -1 -2010 refusing to accept the corrected returns even the same was handed over along with covering letter by the appellant on 30 -12 -2009.
Aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the AA, the appellant preferred appeals before the FAA and the FAA appreciated that facts in the case of the appellant and held that tax paid on service tax component would not form part of the turnover or consideration of the appellant but however did not direct the AA to accept the corrected returns filed by the appellant. The FAA has also not accepted that there was an arithmetical mistake in the return filed for the month of January 2009 and as such revised return for this month had been filed.
As a result the FAA passed the order dated 15 -5 -2010 and partly allowed the appeals, but however rejected the contention of the appellant for the month of January 2009. The FAA failed to direct the AA to accept the corrected revised returns. Hence these appeals are filed before this Tribunal.
(3.) GROUNDS made out in the appeal memorandum in brief are as under:
The appellant submits that the order passed by the FAA insofar as it concerns partly allowing the appeal filed against the endorsement dated 1 -1 -2010 for the tax period of April 2008 to March 2009 and endorsement dated 1 -1 -2010 are not sustainable in law or in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.
The appellant submits that service tax received by him does not form part of the taxable turnover and therefore the AA was wrong in not having accepted the corrected revised returns excluding the service tax component from the total consideration received for works contract executed. The FAA after considering the facts of the case has rightly set aside the endorsement dated 1 -1 -2010, but should have also issued directions to ACCT, LVO -020 to accept the corrected returns. The FAA is wrong in not having given directions to ACCT, LVO -020 to accept the corrected returns.
Arithmetical mistakes in the returns being turnovers of purchases from unregistered dealers not having been deducted from the total turnover before computing the tax payable under Section 15 of the KVAT Act, 2003 was corrected in the corrected returns and in Form VAT 240 filed by the appellant and accordingly the ACCT, LVO -020 ought to have accepted the corrected returns.
The appellant submits that the FAA has not appreciated the correct facts and has dismissed the appeal for the month of January 2009 and accordingly it is liable to be set aside and the corrected return ought to be directed to be accepted.
The appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore : 1967 Kar. L.J. (Tri. Supp.) 63 (HC) (DB) : (1967)20 STC 64 (Mys.) (DB). The appellant also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Narsepalli Oil Mills v. State of Mysore : 1973 Kar. L.J. (Tri. Supp.) 35 (HC) (DB) : (1973)32 STC 599 (Mys.) (DB).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.