TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the KST Act", for brevity), Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the KTEG Act", for brevity) and Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the KVAT Act", for brevity). 3. The Sixth Schedule to the KST Act deals with "works contracts" that is chargeable to tax under the said Act. The activity of photo printing and processing is a service contract according to the petitioner, as the value of the goods used in such activities is negligible. This was questioned, which was settled by the Supreme Court in its earlier judgment in the case of Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2000] 118 STC 9 (SC); [2000] 2 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessments made under entry 25. The KVAT Act came into force on April 1, 2005. Entry No. 10 of the Sixth Schedule which is analogous to entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the KST Act, deals with the works contract of photo printing and processing charges. Since entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the KST Act, was declared as unconstitutional and as entry 10 of the Sixth Schedule to the KVAT Act was analogous to it, the petitioner, like all other dealers in the State was claiming exemption in respect of the turnover of the photo printing and processing charges under the KVAT Act. For the period 2007-08, the petitioner had filed returns under the KVAT Act claiming exemption in respect of the photo printing and processing charges. The returns w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the second respondent went on to levy tax and penalty, thus creating a huge liability, which according to the petitioner was illegal. Consequent to the said order dated February 24, 2015, the second respondent had issued a demand notice. It is the petitioner's case that there was no show-cause notice before the rectification order. Hence, though the petitioner is liable to pay on the value of the goods used in the works contract which the petitioner is ready to discharge, the petitioner is aggrieved on the rate at which it is levied, right from the time of the assessment period, which is oppressive and unreasonable. The petitioner has paid substantial amounts as entry tax during the relevant period and the second respondent has co....