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 in favor of mine owner in KST Act dispute, overturning erroneous requirement for form 32.</h1> <h3>P. Abubakar Versus State of Karnataka</h3> P. Abubakar Versus State of Karnataka - [2013] 63 VST 193 (Kar) Issues:Interpretation of section 5(3)(b) of the KST Act regarding exemption claim for first seller of iron ore in Karnataka.Analysis:The case involved a dispute where the appellant, a mine owner, initially declared sales as inter-State but later corrected it to intra-State sales. The Joint Commissioner allowed the appeal, but the Additional Commissioner reopened the case under section 22A(1) of the Act, citing the requirement of form 32 under rule 26(9)(a) of the KST Rules for claiming exemption. The appellant contended that as a first seller to a registered dealer, he wasn't obligated to produce form 32, as it's the purchaser's responsibility for exemptions under section 5(3)(b) of the KST Act.The court considered the arguments presented. The appellant's counsel argued that the Additional Commissioner erred in requiring form 32 from the first seller, as it's the purchaser's duty to provide such declarations for claiming exemptions. On the other hand, the Government Advocate relied on rule 26(9)(a) to support the need for the first seller to produce form 32. The court noted the necessity to determine if the first seller, in this case, was required to furnish form 32 when selling iron ore to a registered dealer in Karnataka.Upon examining rule 26(9)(a) of the KST Rules, the court concluded that form 32 was only necessary if the purchaser intended to claim exemptions and pay purchase tax. Since the seller wasn't liable for the tax, the obligation to obtain form 32 from the purchaser didn't apply. The Additional Commissioner's oversight in this regard led the court to rule in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Additional Commissioner's order and reinstating the Joint Commissioner's decision.In the final judgment, the court allowed the appeal, overturned the Additional Commissioner's order, and directed any amount paid to be refunded to the appellant. The court's decision clarified the distinction between the responsibilities of the seller and purchaser in claiming exemptions under the KST Act, emphasizing that the obligation to produce form 32 lies with the party liable for the tax, which in this case was the purchaser.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
