TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 3. The aforesaid appeal was filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 is not entitled to claim refund. Against the same, the present revisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 on the ground that the investment made by the petitioner is for the purpose of its business....