2025 (1) TMI 1368 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Penalty upheld for misuse of concessional CST rates on building materials under Section 8(3)(b)

M/s. Apotex Research Private Limited Versus The Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Zone II, Bengaluru.

Karnataka HC dismissed the appeal challenging penalty under CST Act, 1956. The court held that concessional CST rates through Form-C are available only ... Exercise of revisional powers vested in him u/s. 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 r/w Section 64 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - levy of penalty u/s 10A r/w Section A3 (b) of the Act, 1956 - absence of ‘mens rea’ on the part of the appellant - HELD THAT:- The relevant form, namely Form-C is prescribed pursuant to Rule 12 of the CST (Registration & Turnover) Rules 1957. Thus, a Registered dealer purchasing the goods is eligible to avail concessional levy of CST by issuing C-Forms against the purchases of goods which are included in its Certificate of Registration and are intended for resale, for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. The legislative intent is very clear. Such a concession cannot be availed if the goods bought by the Assessee are not included in its Certificate of Registration and are not used in the manner prescribed in Section 8 (3) (b). In the current context, the purchased goods ought to have been used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale and not utilized in the construction of building or for office interiors of the Assessee. The record does not show any effort on part of the Appellant Assessee to actually demonstrate that his purchases meet the test of “integral connection” to the ultimate production of goods. It is one thing to say so repeatedly and it is another to prove the integral connection. The test of integral connection is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JK COTTON [1964 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] - this judgment is placed by the Appellant Assessee himself in his compilation filed across the Bar. When the Apex Court has dealt with building material specifically in JK COTTON and held it to be ineligible for the purposes of Section 8 (3) (b) of the 1956 Act, there is very little room for the Appellant to maneuver. Conclusion - The necessity of adhering to the specific categories of goods listed in the Registration Certificate for concessional tax rates under the CST Act. The goods must be used in manufacturing or resale to qualify for concessional rates. The impugned order is justifiably structured and rightly has set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Court considered the following core legal questions:Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is correct when the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had passed an order in favor of the appellant on the same set of facts and documents.Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent amounts to a re-assessment rather than a revision.Whether a penalty can be levied under Section 10-A of the CST Act in the absence of 'mens rea' on the part of the appellant.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Correctness of the Impugned OrderRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case involves the interpretation of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, particularly focusing on the use of C-Forms and the description of goods in the Registration Certificate.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the goods purchased by the Assessee did not match the description specified in the amended Registration Certificate. The Certificate listed 'PHARMA PRODUCTS INCLUDING CAPITAL GOODS,' but the purchased goods were used for construction purposes, which did not fit this description.Key Evidence and Findings: The goods in question included clean room accessories and building materials, which were not intended for manufacturing or resale as required under the CST Act.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act, which allows concessional rates only for goods intended for resale or use in manufacturing. The goods used for construction did not qualify.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee argued that the goods matched the Registration Certificate's description, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing the legislative intent and the need for goods to be used in manufacturing.Conclusions: The Court upheld the impugned order, finding it correctly set aside the FAA's decision.2. Re-assessment vs. RevisionRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The distinction between re-assessment and revision is crucial under the CST Act and the KVAT Act.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court determined that the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised revisionary powers appropriately under Section 9(2) of the CST Act and Section 64 of the KVAT Act.Key Evidence and Findings: The revisionary order was based on the same facts but corrected the FAA's misinterpretation of the goods' classification.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found the revisionary process was correctly applied, as it aimed to rectify errors in the FAA's decision.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee's argument of re-assessment was dismissed, as the revision focused on correcting legal errors rather than re-evaluating facts.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the process was a revision, not a re-assessment.3. Imposition of Penalty and Mens ReaRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 10-A of the CST Act deals with penalties for improper use of C-Forms.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that mens rea was not a requirement for imposing penalties under Section 10-A, focusing instead on the improper use of C-Forms.Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee failed to demonstrate that the goods were used in manufacturing, as required for concessional rates.Application of Law to Facts: The penalty was justified based on the improper issuance of C-Forms for non-qualifying goods.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee's argument regarding mens rea was rejected, as the statutory framework did not necessitate it for penalties.Conclusions: The Court upheld the penalty, finding no requirement for mens rea in this context.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the specific categories of goods listed in the Registration Certificate for concessional tax rates under the CST Act. It reinforced the principle that goods must be used in manufacturing or resale to qualify for concessional rates.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court ruled against the Assessee on all issues, affirming the revisionary order and the penalty imposed. It clarified that the revision was not a re-assessment and that mens rea was not required for penalties under Section 10-A of the CST Act.The Court's decision highlights the importance of compliance with statutory requirements for tax concessions and the limitations on revising appellate decisions when errors in legal interpretation occur. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases involving the classification and use of goods under the CST Act.