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 rules against appellant in tax dispute over fabricated steel supply to government department, clarifies recovery provisions.</h1> <h3>Tech India Industries Versus Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore, and others</h3> The court ruled against the appellant in a tax dispute involving the supply of fabricated steel items to a government department. It held that the ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of tax concession eligibility for supplying fabricated steel items to a government department.2. Application of section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act for assessment of escaped turnover.3. Recovery of tax from a government department instead of the appellant.Interpretation of Tax Concession Eligibility:The appellant supplied fabricated steel items to M/s. Karnataka Land Army Corporation (M/s. KLAC) and claimed tax concession under a notification. The court analyzed whether M/s. KLAC qualifies as a government department for the tax concession. Referring to a judgment of the Madras High Court, the court concluded that mere support from the government does not make M/s. KLAC a government department for concessional notification purposes. The court found no valid reasons to interfere with the decision, ruling against the appellant's contention.Application of Section 12A for Assessment of Escaped Turnover:The authority invoked section 12A of the Act for assessing escaped turnover. The appellant relied on judgments, Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Mulgund & Co. v. State of Karnataka, but the court found them irrelevant to the current case. The court noted that apart from a declaration by M/s. KLAC, no other material was available. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the authority's decision to apply section 12A for assessment.Recovery of Tax from Government Department:The appellant argued for the recovery of tax from M/s. KLAC instead of the appellant based on different sections of the Act. The court clarified that sections 12A and 8A(5)(a) operate in distinct circumstances. Merely having a remedy under section 8A(5)(a) does not warrant challenging the current order. Ultimately, the court rejected the appeal in favor of the Revenue, answering all contentions in favor of the tax authority. The learned Government Advocate was given time to file her appearance without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
