MYCON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on May 07,2002

MYCON CONSTRUCTION Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

D.CAWASJI AND CO. MYSORE V. STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. [REFERRED]
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
TEXMACO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2002-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
VARKISONS ENGINEERS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
MUNJAAL MANISHBHAI BHATT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-375] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL ASOKA VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
NAKODA ENTERPRISES VS. ACCT, SPECIAL CIRCLE [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-12-128] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL ALAKANANDA VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-315] [REFERRED TO]
SAMRAT INT BHATTA AND ORS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
VARKISONS ENGINEERS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
G BALASUDARAM VS. M ESHWARAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2007-6-27] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. - (1.)In this batch of appeals by special leave common questions arise for consideration and therefore the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)The questions which arise for consideration are whether sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional and secondly, whether the amendment brought in Clause (i) of sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Act No. 7 of 1997 retrospectively is also unconstitutional. The High Court of Karnataka has answered both these questions in the negative and against the appellants. The main judgment was rendered in the writ petition preferred by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 902 of 1999. The remaining matters were disposed of by the High Court following the aforesaid judgment.
(3.)To determine the questions that arise for consideration, it is necessary to notice the legislative history of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Act. We may first notice Section 5B of the Act which provides for levy of tax on transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract which reads as follows:-
"5-B. Levy of the tax on transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of works contracts - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (3-C) of Section 5, but subject to sub-section (4), (5) or (6) of the said Section, every dealer shall pay for each year, a tax under this Act on his taxable turnover of transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of works contract mentioned in column (2) of the Sixth Schedule at the rates specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule".



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.