TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order dated April 6, 2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the assessing authority for the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tractors. During the course of his business, he caused entry of various raw materials, component parts and inputs, which include tyres, tubes and flaps which are used as parts of tractors manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the returns on April 29, 2000 for the assessment year 1999-2000, declaring the total turnover and also taxable turnover and paid tax of Rs. 1,86,18,500. The assessing authority after due verification of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 309 (Karn) Raja Motors v. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Entry Taxes-Cum-Commercial Taxes, Assessments-III, Bangalore City) and this court held that the tractor is an agricultural machinery and is exempted from the tax. Further, the petitioner has contended that they have not collected any tax from their customers. Hence, they are entitled for the refund of the excess tax paid by them. 3. The assessing authority after considering the objections filed by the assessee held that no materials have been produced before the authorities to show that the assessee has neither collected any amount of tax under the Act nor passed on the burden of tax liability on the consumers and also held that collection of tax is contrary to section 3A of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cultural machinery or not is pending consideration before this court. This court in Raja Motors' case [1997] 106 STC 309 (Karn) has held that the tractor is an agricultural machinery falling under the purview entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Hence, the manufacturer of the tractors need not pay tax. The assessee has taken a specific contention and records have been produced before the authorities to show that while selling the tractors, they have not passed on the entry tax burden on their customers and the assessee has not violated the provisions of section 3A of the Act. The question of unjust enrichment by the petitioner does not arise. The order of forfeiture passed under section 3BB of the Act is contrary to law. 5. On th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacture of tractors?" 8. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the court that in respect of the very same revision petitioner for the assessment year 2001-02, similar order has been passed under section 3BB for violating section 3A by the assessing authority, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said order has been set aside by this court in CRP No. 955 of 2005 disposed of on April 5, 2007 and remanded the case to the assessing authority. The similar issue has been involved in this revision petition for the assessment year 1999-2000. Further, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as the authorities below have not taken into consideration the l....