TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to as, "the assessee "), who is a contractor and who has registered himself as a dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), made an application before the appellants (hereinafter referred to as, "the assessing authority") seeking permission for composition of tax as provided under section 17(6) of the Act for the assessment year 1997-98. The assessing authority accepted the request made by the assessee for composition and proceeded with the matter under section 17(6) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee approached the assessing authority requesting to complete the assessment under section 5B of the Act instead of section 17(6) of the Act. The said re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... constitutional validity of section 17(6) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the observation made by this court in the case of Mycon [1998] 111 STC 322; [1999] 46 Kar LJ 21, permitting the assessees in those cases to opt for the assessment under section 5B of the Act, though in that case they had initially sought for composition under section 17(6) of the Act, cannot be considered as a law laid down by this court. Secondly, he submitted that this court, in two Division Bench decisions in the case of Karnataka State Construction Corporation Limited, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka [2004] 138 STC 75; [2003] 55 Kar LJ 460; ILR 2004 Kar 844, to which one of us was a party (P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.) and in the case of M. S. Rao v. Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that emerges for consideration is: "Whether the order passed by the learned single judge calls for interference in this appeal?" While we find considerable force in the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, that the question raised in this appeal is covered by the two Division Bench decisions of this court in the cases of Karnataka State Construction Corporation Limited [2004] 138 STC 75; [2003] 55 Kar LJ 460; ILR 2004 Kar 844 and M. S. Rao [2003] 55 Kar LJ 262, we are unable to accede with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the learned single judge was justified in passing the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This also clear from the fact that the time-limit is prescribed for making an application at the commencement of the year or the commencement of the business. Therefore, in our view, it would not be permissible for a dealer to go back on the composition granted to him. In our view, the observation made by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. Venus Castings (P.) Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1568; [2000] 4 SCC 206, relied upon by the learned Government Advocate supports the view we have taken above. . ." Same is the view taken by this court in the case of M.S. Rao [2003] 55 Kar LJ 262. Therefore, in our view, the order passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside on the short g....