TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1057
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "[i] issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration inthe nature of writ of certiorari quashing in entirety the Endorsement No.IO/MSC/CR-126/2013-14 dated 26.5.2018 issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka - ANNEXURE J" 2.The writ petition is directed against the Order dated 26.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, holding that in view of Rule 47[1] of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, [hereinafter referred to as 'Rules', for brevity] theAssessee having different units of business was not entitled to separate registration under Section 38[6] of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act, for brevity]. 3.The relevant reasons given in the impugned order are quoted below fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the KVAT Act need to be adhered to, in order to avail the benefit under section 38[6] of the Act. 4) It is true that Commissioner may treat each of such places of a dealer as a separate unit subject to such condition as may be prescribed and with the consent of the dealer. While the consent of the dealer is required for the Commissioner to treat such places as separate units, the conditions under Rule 47 have to be mandatorily followed. 5) Rule 47[1] of the KVAT Rule mandates that the tax payable under any of the provisions of the Act by each of such branch by separate unit together with other places of the business in the States shall not be less than the tax that would have been payable by him under any of such provisions of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the composition scheme by virtue of holding COT registration for the new food outlet, the assessee Company appealed to the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal interpreting the provisions under Rule 47[1] in favour of the Department. The relevant portions of the judgment at page 7 is extracted hereunder: "...........The aforesaid clause [i] of sub-rule [1] of Rule 47 makes it avery clear that separate registration and filing of returns by the branches of the body corporates is permissible only when the tax payable by other separate units would be not less than the tax that would have been payable by them under any such provisions of the Act, if such branch was not treated as a separate unit under sub-section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is case, there is violation of the Rule 47[1][i] as the dealer was paying tax under the composition scheme in the first business premises which would amount to the payment of lesser amount of tax than that he would have paid under the regular VAT Scheme if all the branches were not treated separately. As the said Company was selling liquor in the second unit, as per Rule 135[4] of the KVAT Rules, the Company is ineligible for the benefit of Composition Scheme under section 15 of KVAT Act in respect of such branches and was liable to pay tax only at the regular rate from 10.06.2008, the date from which subsequent registration was taken for branches carrying on the liquor sales. 12) The ineligibility of opting for composition scheme applies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P, all dated 02/05/2015 for the tax period from the year 2008-09 [from June 2008] to 2013-14 are also quashed. No order as to costs. 8. The Respondent-Commissioner will however be free to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assessee and after affording opportunity of hearing shall be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs." 5.Neither Rule 47[1] of the Rules nor Division Bench Judgment in the case of M/s. Aswati Inns Private Limited was brought to the notice of this Court while the learned Counsel Mr. Rabinanathan G., argued this case on 10.07.2017 were obviously not taken note of in the said order passed by this Court on 10.07.2017. 6.The said Order dated 26.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner....