2009 (2) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... some of the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the Legislature thought it fit to extend some concession in respect of the tax liability under the new Act in favour of those dealers who had such sales tax paid goods in stock which had already suffered tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and this provision is found expression in section 18 of the Act which are as under: "18. Transitional provisions covering relief on sales tax on stock in hand for manufacture and resale at the date of commencement of this Act shall be as prescribed." Rule 166. Transitional relief on stock in hand.-(1) At the date of commencement of the Act, any registered dealer shall be entitled under section 18 to relief on the goods taxab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act. The petitioner thereafter having approached the competent authority and the competent authority having opined that the order as passed earlier was correct one and that the petitioner cannot claim for better benefit than what had been granted earlier and had rejected the request for better claim in terms of the order dated June 4, 2008, the copy of which is as per annexure D in the writ petition. The petitioner is before this court in the second round of writ litigation. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri. S.V. Subramanyan, learned counsel, would urge that the Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, before whom clarification was sought for as per section 90 of the Act, has not properly understood the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 18 the Legislature enabled the Government to frame Rules. This is to extend a concession effectuated through rule 166. The rule in categorical terms says that concession is confined to reducing the tax liability under the later Act only to the extent of the lesser of the liabilities under the two Acts and not beyond that. Therefore irrespective of the tax liability under the earlier Act, the concession cannot be extended to the whole of the tax liability under the earlier Act if the liability under the later enactment if is less; which is the situation in the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner should have incurred a lesser liability, there was no possibility of the petitioner getting the concession to the extent of liability und....