2008 (7) TMI 1077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For the Respondent : Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, HCGP. Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in STA No. 313/2006 to 315/2006 dt. 28th February 2007. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant, refund claimed under the head, input tax was disallowed by invoking Section 11(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the ground that the petitioner was not liable for deduction under Fifth schedule of the Act. In other words, the claim made by the petitioner was disallowed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ities including the Appellate Tribunal considering the definition of the word 'input' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act held that the chassis is not a capital goods purchased by a dealer in the course of his business for resale or for use in the manufacture or processing or packing or storing of other goods or any other use in business and held that the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....action and processing to the other countries. In order to export the same, iron ore has to be transported from the place of extraction or from the place of processing, till shipment is completed. In order to transport the iron ore, chassis is purchased and thereafter a body is built on it, in order to treat it as a truck or lorry. Now the claim is made by the petitioner for refund of the input tax....