2020 (11) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ird respondent under Section 39[1] of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short 'KVAT Act']. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to show cause against the re-assessment. The petitioner was issued Form VAT 275 on 27.03.2017 for production of Book of Accounts, tax Invoices, sale bills, declaration and delivery notes relating to sales or purchases in the course of interstate trade or commerce followed by Endorsement dated 20.11.2017. The petitioner responded to the endorsement by submitting samples sales and purchase invoices and audited statements. Thereafter, a proposition notice was issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that tax cannot be levied on the fertilizer subsidy which is granted independent of the price under the Fertilizer Control Order. Though the third respondent has considered this decision, has attempted to distinguish the same in the premise that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act and the Kerala Sales Tax Act and the provisions of the KVAT Act are different. Further, the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the third respondent has referred to proviso to Section 15[2][e] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without considering Section 15[2][e] which provides for exclusion of the subsidies provided by the Central Government. 4. Sri. Hema....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impacting the reassessment. Further, if the petitioner succeeds in this regard, the impugned order would have to be modified. As such, the impugned order will have to be set aside on this ground remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [the third respondent]. 6. Furthermore, the other contention on behalf of the petitioner that there cannot be a levy of tax on subsidy availed by the petitioner will perforce have to be considered in the light of the dictum by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and the other contentions of the petitioner. The distinction attempted on the ground that the provisions of the KVAT Act are different from the provisions of similar enactment in the S....