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 tax charged on sales made in the course of import was exigible to tax under the State enactment. (ii) Whether the revisional and appellate authorities were justified in interfering with the Assessing Officer's order when the levy constituted an apparent mistake on the record and the officer's power could be traced to rectification.
Issue (i): Whether tax charged on sales made in the course of import was exigible to tax under the State enactment.
Analysis: The transaction was found to be a sale in the course of import and therefore fell within the protection of Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India bars State taxation on supplies taking place in the course of import. On that basis, the levy of value added tax under the State enactment on such sales was beyond the statutory field.
Conclusion: The tax was not exigible and the levy was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional and appellate authorities were justified in interfering with the Assessing Officer's order when the levy constituted an apparent mistake on the record and the officer's power could be traced to rectification.
Analysis: Although reference was made to Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2002, the substance of the action was treated as rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under Section 69(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The reasoning proceeded on the principle that the source of power can be gathered from the tenor of the order and that an obvious illegality in levy could validly be corrected in rectification proceedings. The revisional and tribunal orders did not correctly appreciate this position.
Conclusion: The interference by the revisional and appellate authorities was unjustified and the Assessing Officer's order was liable to be restored.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned revisional and tribunal orders were set aside, and the Assessing Officer's order was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A levy imposed on a sale in the course of import is barred by constitutional and statutory limitations, and where the substance of the assessment action is rectification of an error apparent from the record, the order is not invalid merely because a different provision is mistakenly cited if the source of power is otherwise traceable from the order itself.
TaxTMI 
