TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated April 13, 1999, under which the petitioner was entitled to claim sales tax exemption for the period commencing from March 16, 1999 up to March 31, 2005. This benefit was conferred on the petitioner, according to the petitioner, both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, "the KST Act" for brevity) as well as the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, "the KVAT Act" for brevity) in terms of Notification No. FD 56 CSL 2005(1), KG dated April 18, 2005. The Government issued a second notification under section 5(2) of the KVAT Act bearing No. 56 CSL 2005(2), dated April 18, 2005, wherein the benefit of tax exemption given to new industrial units under the KST Act was extended under the provisions of the KVAT Act to the extent of the unavailed portion of the benefit. This was subject to certain conditions and procedures to be followed by a new industrial unit to avail of the benefit. One of the requirements was that the industrial unit should be one which had already claimed exemption of sales tax on the sale of goods manu- factured by it under the notification issued under the KST Act referred to above. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficate of entitlement. This amount, according to the petitioner, was due as on March 31, 2006 for the assessment period 2005-06. The petitioner did not receive any reply or a refund order from the respondents. It is only much later that the petitioner was informed that since the petitioner had failed to file the revised returns claiming refund, the petitioner was not entitled to the same. The petitioner was also informed that the petitioner could claim set-off of the refund against the subsequent tax liabilities. Accordingly, the petitioner while filing returns for the subsequent tax periods, namely, March 2006, July 2006, and August 2006, had computed the tax liability and claimed set-off of the refund due against the tax payable for the said periods. It was also informed by the petitioner that the refund due shall be adjusted against the taxes payable by the petitioner for those months and the balance, if any, be carried forward. The petitioner therefore claims that it is eligible for refund of Rs. 5,37,417 as per the entitlement certificate and of Rs. 7,10,678 by virtue of transitional relief. It then transpires that the first respondent had issued a notice dated October 19, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner however requested for proper adjustment of tax rebate in view of the second respondent, by a notice dated September October 19, 2006 had stated that the petitioner had not paid any tax as per the returns filed. And once that is rejected there ought to have been a fresh determination. But, recovery notices were issued to the petitioner demanding payment of tax pursuant to the reas- sessment orders and the petitioner filed a representation requesting that the recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance. And also filed an application requesting the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (hereinafter referred to as, "the ACCT", for brevity) to rectify the mistakes apparent on record whereby the disallowances made on input-tax claim and levy of additional tax apart from the penalty levies were required to be deleted. During the pendency of the application for rectification, an endorsement dated August 26, 2008, was issued by which tax of Rs. 3,70,093 collected and remitted by the petitioner was forfeited. Thereafter, there was a demand for a further sum from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached this court by way of a 12 writ petition in W.P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner to furnish books of account and verify the returns. In the case on hand, the petitioner had filed returns of turnover. The petitioner had collected taxes on its sales and had remitted the same. The exemption provided to the petitioner is upon the tax payable. Since there were more inputs available to the petitioner including the transitional relief, the petitioner had claimed set-off of the tax payable against the input-tax rebate and the transitional relief. As a consequence, though the petitioner is liable to pay tax, the net tax payable by the petitioner has been substantially reduced, that necessitated the petitioner to claim the benefit under FAVC/entitlement certificate by way of refund. And the petitioner has filed an application seeking refund of tax on the basis of entitlement certificate. The respondents however contended that the petitioner ought to have claimed refund in the return of turnover filed by it and not by a separate application. It is the petitioner's contention that if the respondents had acted promptly under the provisions of section 38(1) immediately after returns were filed by the petitioner and a refund application was made, the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se that the respondents cannot now deny the petitioner its due on the ground that it had not claimed refund in the returns and there- fore, was not capable of being considered. And hence prays that this court issue appropriate directions having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate seeks to contend as follows: It is admitted that the petitioner's unit was eligible for sales tax exemption from March 16, 1999 to March 15, 2006, for a period of seven years equivalent to the amount of investment made in fixed assets amounting to Rs. 1,29,87,000. The petitioner had availed of sales tax exemption to the tune of Rs. 1,24,39,311 up to March 31, 2005 and the balance tax amount would be Rs. 5,47,689. It is thus stated that from April 1, 2005, the KVAT Act having come into force, the Government of Karnataka, had issued a notification dated April 18, 2005, which is referred to by the petitioner. That the exemption given to the new industrial units under the provisions of the KST Act had been extended under the KVAT Act to the extent of the unavailed portion. As already stated by the petitioner, it does prescribe cer- tain terms and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner, it is stated that has already filed an appeal before the appellate authority and also has raised this issue of availment of benefit of tax before the appellate authority and hence the same is not maintainable and the writ petition ought to be dismissed. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the assessing authorities have strictly construed the provisions of the Act and have denied the benefit to the petitioner. This certainly cannot be faulted and therefore, any appeal that may have been filed by the petitioner on other aspects of assessment, the petitioner's claim for refund would meet the same fate, as the appellate authority is bound to strictly apply the provisions of the Act and it is in that circumstance that the petitioner is before this court. It is not in dispute that in terms of the notification under which the benefit of sales tax exemption was conferred on the petitioner, was not completely utilised by the petitioner and that there remained unavailed portion of amount which ought to have been claimed from April 2005 in its monthly returns. Since according to the petitioner there was no net tax liability, the petitioner ought to have shown ....