Concessional tax for industrial machinery turns on defined "industrial inputs", while penalty must stay within the statutory ceiling.

Concessional tax under a Karnataka Sales Tax notification applied only where specified machinery was sold to an industrial unit for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, and the notification's own definition of "industrial inputs" was limited to component parts, raw materials, or packing materials. Tower cranes used for lifting and moving loads in construction did not satisfy that definition and were not eligible for the concessional rate. The penalty framework under the Act permitted recovery of the tax difference and a penalty for breach of the notification conditions, but the penalty had to remain within the statutory ceiling and be fixed having regard to the facts; the penalty was therefore reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tower cranes purchased by the assessee qualified for concessional tax under the notification issued under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as machinery sold to an industrial unit for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale; (ii) Whether the penalty levied for contravention of the notification conditions required interference, and if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether tower cranes purchased by the assessee qualified for concessional tax under the notification issued under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as machinery sold to an industrial unit for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale.

Analysis: The notification reduced tax on specified machinery only when sold to an industrial unit for use in manufacture or processing of goods for sale, subject to production of the prescribed declaration and satisfaction of the further conditions governing industrial inputs. The expression "industrial inputs" was explained in the notification itself to mean component part, raw material, or packing material. Tower cranes are hoisting machines used for lifting and moving heavy loads and, in the context of building construction, cannot be treated as component parts or raw material of any other goods. The assessee's activity did not establish entitlement to the concessional scheme on the footing that the cranes were industrial inputs covered by the notification.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate of tax in respect of the tower cranes.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty levied for contravention of the notification conditions required interference, and if so, to what extent.

Analysis: Section 8A(5)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 authorises recovery of the tax difference and also penalty upon breach of the specified conditions, with the penalty capped at the amount equivalent to the tax leviable on the sale price of the goods. The finding that the assessee's claim to concessional tax was untenable sustained the levy itself, but the amount of penalty had to remain within the statutory limit and reflect the circumstances of withholding the legitimate tax. Considering the quantum involved and the period of withholding, reduction of the penalty was warranted.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty was upheld, but the quantum was reduced to five lakhs.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the denial of concessional tax failed, but the penalty was curtailed to the extent indicated, so the matter succeeded only on the question of quantum.

Ratio Decidendi: Concessional tax notifications conditioned on use of machinery in manufacture or processing of goods for sale must be construed according to their defined terms, and machinery that is not an industrial input as defined by the notification cannot qualify for the benefit; where breach is established, penalty may be sustained but must remain within the statutory ceiling and be fixed with regard to the facts of the case.

---