TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether job-work of printing and supplying printed materials was exigible to tax under section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 prior to 1 April 1992 in view of entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule and the Sixth Schedule; and (ii) whether the revisional order under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could stand when the appellate order had already been rectified under section 25-A of the same Act.
Issue (i): Whether job-work of printing and supplying printed materials was exigible to tax under section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 prior to 1 April 1992 in view of entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule and the Sixth Schedule.
Analysis: The relevant scheme treated transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contracts as taxable under section 5-B, but entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule exempted works contracts not specified in the Sixth Schedule. Printing and block making were brought into the Sixth Schedule only with effect from 1 April 1992. Therefore, before that date, such printing job-work did not fall within the taxable category under section 5-B, and the receipts could not be brought to tax merely as works contract turnover.
Conclusion: The job-work of printing and supplying printed materials was not taxable under section 5-B prior to 1 April 1992, and the assessee was entitled to exemption for the relevant periods.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could stand when the appellate order had already been rectified under section 25-A of the same Act.
Analysis: The revisional authority proceeded against the original appellate order without noticing that the same authority had already rectified that order under section 25-A. Once the appellate order stood corrected, the original order could not be treated as the operative order for revision. The revision was also unsustainable on merits because it overlooked the exemption flowing from entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule.
Conclusion: The revisional order was invalid and liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the revisional interference was quashed, and the appellate relief in favour of the assessee was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a works contract is not specified in the Sixth Schedule, entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule exempts it from tax under section 5-B before the relevant amendment, and a revisional order founded on an uncorrected appellate order cannot survive once that order has been rectified.
TaxTMI 
