TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore dated July 14, 2000 has been confirmed. The assessee is engaged in the business of execution of works contract of building bus body on the chassis supplied by its customers. According to the petitioner, the K.S.R.T.C. being one of its customers brought the chassis to its workshop for the purpose of building body. The petitioner, after constructing the body on the chassis brought by the K.S.R.T.C., has delivered the buses to the K.S.R.T.C. and the buses were removed from the workshop of the petitioner by the K.S.R.T.C. through its drivers. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore called upon the petitioner to pay taxes for the assessment year 1995-96 under the KTEG Act of 1979 on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering the fact that the petitioner did not cause any entry of chassis into the local area and by mis-interpreting the facts have wrongly called upon the petitioner to pay the entry tax. According to him, the chassis were purchased by the K.S.R.T.C. and the K.S.R.T.C. brought those chassis to the premises of the assessee for the purpose of building the body. The petitioner, after building the body has delivered the vehicles to the K.S.R.T.C. and the K.S.R.T.C. has taken possession of the vehicle from the premises of the petitioner-assessee and therefore, he contends that the petitioner at no point of time caused entry of chassis into any local area and that the authorities, by interpreting the provisions of law wrongly, have called upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ler, the dealer who takes delivery of the goods from such person shall be deemed to have brought or caused to have brought the goods into the local area. After careful reading of the provision of law relied upon by the learned Government Advocate, we would have appreciated the contention of the State, provided the petitioner had brought the chassis into the local area on behalf of the K.S.R.T.C. On facts, the petitioner has not caused any entry of the chassis into the local area either for the use of the assessee or for the benefit of the K.S.R.T.C. The State has not disputed the fact that the chassis was purchased by K.S.R.T.C. and the petitioner-assessee has only built the body for the benefit of the K.S.R.T.C. Therefore, what is require....