TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luru ('Tribunal' for short) in STA Nos.1874 to 1897/2013 relating to the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. 2. The petitioner - assessee is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial gases like oxygen, nitrogen, liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen and liquid argon. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short). The petitioner has entered into Product Purchase Agreements with their customers. In respect of sales made to M/s BOC India Ltd., and M/s Inox Air Products Pvt. Ltd., which held 50% stakes in the petitioner's company, invoices were raised as per the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on by the petitioner to be in the nature of discount requiring compliance of Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in upholding the levy of CST on the notional value adopted in compliance of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000? 3. Whether discounts indicated on the facts of invoice alone are allowed as deduction in terms of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as interpreted by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of M/s Southern Motors vs. State of Karnataka and others reported at 2017-VIL-05-SC?" 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the purchasing companies having 50% stake with the petitioner comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o reduce the sale price originally charged in the invoices raised which was not reflected in the said invoices. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of deduction in sale price of goods and confirmed the demand of tax and interest. 7. Thus, the learned counsel argued that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Motors v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 467 the requirement of reference of the discount in the tax invoice or bill of sale to qualify it for deduction has to be construed in relation to the transaction resulting in the final sale/purchase price and not limited to the original sale sans the trade discount. 8. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted in the invoice. 12. However, now, in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Motors, supra, to deny the benefit of deduction only on the ground of omission to reflect the trade discount though actually granted in future, in the tax invoice/bill of sale at the time of the original transaction would be to ignore the contemporaneous actuality and be unrealistic and held that the view of the authorities runs counter to the avowed objective of the correct determination of the taxable turnover considering Section 30 of the Act, which stood during the relevant period and Rule 3(2)(c) and the proviso thereof. Though the petitioner has contended before the Tribunal that issuing of credit note to the purchasing deal....