TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, dated 20.07.2015 in STA No.123/2015 (M/s. British Biologicals vs. State of Karnataka) whereby, the learned Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in-part. The relevant observations of the learned Tribunal in the impugned order are quoted below for ready reference; "The Hon'ble High Court has reproduced the relevant part of the impugned order which was before it at paragraph No.2 and the same relates to three specific 'F' forms wherein, the said three 'F' Forms contained transactions for two months over lapping each other. In this context only, the said decision has been rendered. Even the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cited supra has clearly spelt/clarify to consider ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm declaration covering for the entire year. Further, it is noted from the AA's records, the appellant has filed statutory forms periodically starting from 01st April, 2009 followed by submission of Forms on 05th August, 2009 and has also submitted the correspondence done with the consignment agent situated outside the State. Thus, the appellant had reasonable and sufficient time to procure statutory forms from outside the State dealers. In case of defective 'F' Forms, the appellant has all the liberty to procure the correct 'F' Forms to claim exemption u/s.6-A of the CST Act. In view of the above facts and position of law, Point No.2 is answered in the negative." 2. The petitioner-assessee has filed STRP No.154/2016 & STRP Nos.256-166/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not barred by limitation in view of the substitution of Section 40 of the KVAT Act, 2003 by Act No.17 of 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2012? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in rejecting the petitioner's contention that Rule 12(5) of the CST Rules does not impose any condition that single F Form shall contain transactions of only one calendar month? 3. When the petitioner has complied substantial provisions of the law, whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in refusing to give liberal interpretation in regard to Rule 12(5) of the CST Rules, in regard to transactions contained in one single F Form? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in dismissing the petitioner's appeals without considering the petitioner's contention in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Turnover) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1973 may continue to be used up to 31ST day of December [1980] with suitable modifications." 5. Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (for short 'CST Act') under which the said Rule 12(5) has been framed is also quoted below for ready reference; "6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale.- (1) where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revision by a higher authority on the ground that the findings of the assessing authority are contrary to law, and such reassessment or revision may be done in accordance with the provisions of general sales tax law of the State.]" 6. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Cipla Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner, CT (Cal) relied upon by the learned Tribunal along with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan reported in (1999) 237 ITR page 570 (SC) have already been quoted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 7. We find that the controversy involved in the present case is duly supported by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court and w....