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 Assessing Officer's rectification orders disallowing discounts for lack of documentation. Petitions dismissed.</h1> <h3>Southern Motors represented by its Managing Partner V.P. Thiruvengada Swamy Versus State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary (Department of Finance), Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Gandhinagar), Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-1. 6), Vat Division-1 (Gandhinagar)</h3> Southern Motors represented by its Managing Partner V.P. Thiruvengada Swamy Versus State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary (Department of ... Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are the rectification orders u/s Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and the entitlement of the petitioner to discounts offered to customers.Rectification Orders: The Assessing Officer rectified the assessments for the period from April 2007 to March 2008 and from April 2008 to August 2008 in accordance with Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The rectification was made by disallowing the discount offered by the petitioner to its customers as the tax invoices or sale bills did not show the discounts offered. This factual aspect is not in dispute.Rule 3(2)(c) of the Rules: Rule 3(2)(c) provides for allowing discounts given to customers as allowable deductions, provided the tax invoice or sale bill shows the amount allowed as discount. The validity of this rule was upheld by the Court in a previous case filed by the same petitioner. The impugned rectifications were found to be in conformity with this rule.Division Bench Judgments: The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment in State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., which was considered contrary to the judgment in State vs. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. The latter judgment emphasized that discounts must be shown in the tax invoice for the assessee to be entitled to any relief. The Court found the rectification orders to be in accordance with Rule 3(2)(c) and the precedent set by the Division Bench in the Kitchen Appliances case.Conclusion: The Court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the impugned rectification orders to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
