TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms tax requirement for reimbursement under Sales Tax Act; clarifies proviso interpretation.</h1> <h3>Dhanji Kalyanji & Co. Versus The State of Karnataka</h3> The Court upheld the Commercial Tax Officer's rectification under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1965-66, emphasizing the requirement ... - Issues:1. Assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1965-66.2. Exemption of goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.3. Amendments to section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and section 5(4) of the State Act.4. Rectification of the order of assessment under the State Act.5. Appeal process and revision petition.6. Interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 5 of the State Act.7. Claim for reimbursement under the proviso.8. Comparison with the decision in Manickam and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu.9. Final judgment and clarification of available remedies.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, was assessed for the year 1965-66. Certain turnovers of groundnuts and cotton were not assessed initially due to being sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, based on a previous court decision.2. Amendments to section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and section 5(4) of the State Act were made, affecting the exemption status of the goods sold in inter-State trade.3. The Commercial Tax Officer rectified the assessment order under section 25-A of the State Act, leading to appeals by the petitioner to higher tax authorities, ultimately resulting in a revision petition.4. The proviso to sub-section (4) of section 5 of the State Act required tax payment under the Central Sales Tax Act for reimbursement, which the petitioner contested based on non-collection of Central sales tax.5. The petitioner's reliance on the Manickam case was dismissed as it did not support the petitioner's argument regarding reimbursement of taxes paid under the State Act.6. The Court upheld the Commercial Tax Officer's rectification, emphasizing the necessity of paying tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for claiming reimbursement under the proviso to section 5(4) of the State Act.7. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition while affirming the availability of other legal remedies to the petitioner.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the assessment, amendments, rectification process, reimbursement claims, and the final decision rendered by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
