2018 (5) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1957, aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2012, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at Bangalore, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee-petitioner with the following observations :- "11. Thus, the notification issued earlier on the strength of which the appellant was extended the benefit of exemption of CST was partially modified and a condition was put to the effect that exemption of tax granted in those earlier notifications shall be subject to the condition of furnishing of 'C/D' declaration forms issued by the buying dealer. In pursuance to the said Notification, the AA initiated re-assessment proceedings U/s. 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 12- A of the KST Act and denied the benefit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any is a benefit. Therefore, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The amendment of provisions of section 8(5) is prospective from 11/05/2002. After the amendment to section 8(5) the requirement of the conditions as laid down in sub section (4) of section 8 of the CST Act shall be mandatorily fulfilled by the assessee". Again at para 14 it is held "The assessment period relates to subsequent to amendment and to avail the exemption benefit the appellant ought to have fulfilled the requirements. It cannot stick on only to the conditions imposed earlier and ignore the additional requirements to be complied with..." Thus it could be seen that the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the re-opening of assessment in the case of M/s. Volvo Ind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.N. Shankare Gowda submitted before the Court that the Assessee-petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit of incentive on the basis of eligible investment made under the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for the capital investment of Rs. 231.48 Crores in terms of G.O.No.CI 41 SPI 96 dated 27.05.1996 and Notification issued vide No. FD 5 CSL 198 (I & II) dated 11.08.1998 to the extent of 80% of the investment made by it for a period of seven years.   3. The learned counsel for the Assessee urged that even though the rate of tax chargeable from the petitioner-Assessee could be higher as per Section 8(2) of the CST Act, 1956, in the absence of furnishing of prescribed declar....