TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in other States also outside the State of Karnataka. 2. In these writ petitions, a challenge has been laid to the impugned assessment order passed by the Respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-2.7, Bengaluru, on 28.11.2016 for the assessment period April 2010 to March 2011, raising a net demand of Rs. 24,72,79,464/- including the tax, interest and penalty under the provisions of KVAT Act, 2003. 3. The brief reason for which the impugned assessment order assailed by the petitioner-company is that the denial of exemption of tax under the provisions of KVAT Act, 2003 in respect of the sales made by the petitioner-company outside the State of Karnataka. The petitioner-company claimed such outside Karnataka sales to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RTH CHENNAI-UNIT-I 58929630 TNEB-NORTH CHENNAI-UNIT-II 9957278 TOTAL 190641216 UTTAR PRADESH UPR VUNL-ANPARA 93061926 TOTAL 93061926 WEST BENGAL DVC-AHP MEJIA UNIT 1 & 2 1153846 DVC-DURGAPUR-TPS-AHP 18571116 TOTAL 19724962 GRAND TOTAL 953492290 THE ANALYSIS OF TURNOVER PERTAINING TO EXEMPT TURNOVER There is a claim of exemption on the turnover of Sale outside Karnataka and has submitted the documents such as. 1. Statement of invoice details with invoices. 2. Copy of the E-Mial Letter sent by BHEL, Hyderabad. 3. Copy of Form-304 of Gujarat State. 4. Copy of audit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars, even after coming into force of the KVAT Act, 2003, but for the present assessment period in question, the Assessing Authority refused that exemption even though the relevant details, audit reports and documents were furnished before him during the course of the assessment proceedings and he also submitted that no specific proposition notice was given to the assessee for denying such exemption of sales made outside the State of Karnataka to the petitioner-company for this year in question. He also submitted that the petitioner-company, a public sector undertaking is in huge losses and demand of tax, interest and penalty raised is wholly illegal, without considering the relevant documents produced by the petitioner-company for claimi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule No.34(3) and Rule 138 of KAVT Act Rules, 2005 and he submitted that the assessee has voluntarily disclosed its entire turnover in its returns filed here and therefore, for claiming the exemption in respect of the sales made outside the State of Karnataka, it ought to have proved each such transaction properly that such sales was really taking place outside the State of Karnataka, not attracting any tax under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003 or entitling the State of Karnataka to collect even CST under the provisions of CST Act, 1956, for the inter- state sales made from the State of Karnataka to the purchasers in other States. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that there are alterna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company which is a loss making public sector undertaking may be permitted that instead of filing the appeal, it would file the Rectification application under Section 69 of the Act and the respondent-Assessing Authority may be directed to pass the appropriate speaking order on such Rectification application within the stipulated time frame, as the petitioner-company would be unable to deposit the requisite portion of the disputed demand of Rs. 24.72 crores at this stage. 11. However, upon instructions of the officials of the petitioner-company present in the Court, he fairly submitted that if a minimal portion of the said demand say to the tune of Rs. 5 crores is directed to be deposited, for disposal of the writ petition as prayed by di....