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 upholds denial of CST Act exemption, validates KVAT reassessment orders, penalties upheld.</h1> <h3>HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA</h3> HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - [2016] 92 VST 223 (Kar) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Validity of re-assessment orders under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.3. Levy of penalty and interest under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:The petitioner argued that the lease transactions during the periods 2006-07 to 2010-11 were exempt under Section 5(2) of the CST Act, as they were in the course of import. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax and no exemption is available under Section 5(2). The Tribunal analyzed the Master Lease Agreement (MLA), Purchase Order (PO), Bill of Entry (BOE), and other documents. It concluded that the transactions were not integrated and thus did not qualify for exemption under Section 5(2). The Tribunal emphasized that the transactions lacked the required 'inextricable link' between the import and the lease, which is essential for claiming exemption under Section 5(2).2. Validity of Re-assessment Orders under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003:The second respondent examined the petitioner's books of accounts and records, concluding that the petitioner leased the equipment after importing it from outside India. Consequently, the transactions did not qualify as being in the course of import under Section 5(2) of the CST Act. The re-assessment orders for the periods 2006-07 to 2010-11 were issued, holding the petitioner liable for tax under the KVAT Act. The petitioner's appeals to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and subsequently to the Tribunal were dismissed, affirming the re-assessment orders.3. Levy of Penalty and Interest under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003:The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty and interest, noting that the petitioner had not declared taxable sales during the relevant periods. The petitioner admitted to inadvertently not disclosing the turnover and voluntarily paid the output tax along with applicable interest. The Tribunal found that the omissions were not inadvertent mistakes but rather a failure to declare taxable sales, justifying the imposition of penalty under Section 72(2) of the KVAT Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Guljag Industries vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited to support the imposition of penalty and interest.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, concluding that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act. The re-assessment orders under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act were valid, and the imposition of penalty and interest was justified. The petitions were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 