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>Bakery dealer's printed cover sales not tax-exempt under KGST Act. New issues in revision petition not allowed.</h1> <h3>A. Baiju, Shaju Bakery Versus State Of Kerala</h3> The High Court upheld the decision that a bakery dealer's sales in printed covers were not exempt from tax under the KGST Act as they were considered ... - Issues Involved:1. Liability to tax u/s 5(2) of the KGST Act for sales in printed covers.2. Exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun.3. Reasonableness of the addition sustained by the Appellate Tribunal.Summary:Issue 1: Liability to tax u/s 5(2) of the KGST Act for sales in printed coversThe revision petitioner, a dealer in bakery products, claimed exemption from sales tax on the grounds that his sales were second sales. However, upon inspection by the Intelligence wing, it was found that the petitioner sold bakery products under a brand name or trade mark. The assessing authority reopened the assessment and concluded that the sales were exigible to tax u/s 5(2) of the Act. The first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the petitioner used printed covers with the bakery's name and address, which constituted sales under a brand name. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that the petitioner was a brand name holder and thus the sales were not exempt as second sales.Issue 2: Exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bunThe petitioner argued for exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun. However, this issue was not raised before the assessing authority or the Tribunal. The High Court held that new issues not argued before lower authorities cannot be raised for the first time in a revision petition. Therefore, this contention was rejected.Issue 3: Reasonableness of the addition sustained by the Appellate TribunalThe petitioner contended that the addition sustained by the Tribunal was unreasonable. The High Court, however, found no merit in this argument, as the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the facts and upheld the assessment based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The High Court rejected the revision petition, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The questions of law framed by the assessee were answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
