TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the exemption notifications concerning raw materials, component parts and packing materials could be invoked in relation to furniture purchased by the assessee, and whether the assessee was liable under Section 8-A(5)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the alleged contravention. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the tax liability could be fastened on the purchaser or remained primarily on the selling dealer.
Issue (i): Whether the exemption notifications concerning raw materials, component parts and packing materials could be invoked in relation to furniture purchased by the assessee, and whether the assessee was liable under Section 8-A(5)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the alleged contravention.
Analysis: The notifications relied upon were confined to sales of raw materials, component parts and packing materials to 100% export oriented units. Furniture did not fall within the ambit of those notifications. Since the notification itself was inapplicable to the goods purchased, there was no breach of any condition or restriction contained in it. In the absence of an applicable notification, Section 8-A(5)(a) could not be attracted against the assessee.
Conclusion: The assessee was not liable under Section 8-A(5)(a) for the alleged contravention based on an inapplicable exemption notification.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the tax liability could be fastened on the purchaser or remained primarily on the selling dealer.
Analysis: The seller granted exemption on a transaction to which the notifications had no application. The legal liability to pay tax, on these facts, arose from the taxable sale effected by the dealer. The purchaser's conduct in producing the certificate did not shift the substantive tax burden onto the purchaser in the absence of a statutory basis under Section 8-A(5)(a).
Conclusion: The primary liability to pay tax remained on the selling dealer, and not on the assessee-purchaser.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the notifications did not cover the goods in question and the statutory provision relied upon could not be used to fasten tax liability on the assessee.
TaxTMI 
