TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that the Respondent was eligible to pay taxes under the scheme of composition as provided for under Section 15(1)(c) of the Act, especially when the Respondent had effected purchase of machinery in the course of interstate trade for use in business activity of the Respondent? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Petitioner's case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law on dismissing the Cross Appeals filed by the Petitioner herein?" 2. Heard Shri. Jeevan J. Neralagi, learned AGA for petitioners and Shri. M. Thirumalesh learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are, respondent is a partnership firm engaged in sale of bakery products. It opted for composition scheme for payment of tax as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016, 372/2016, 324/2016 and 325/2016. By the impugned common judgment order 12.03.2020, the KAT has allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority, the Assessing Authority and Revenue dismissed the Cross Appeals filed by the Revenue. Hence, this Revision Petition. 6. Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned AGA for the Revenue submitted that it is not in dispute that the respondent has made inter State purchase of bakery machinery. In terms of Rule 135(1) & (2) of the KVAT Rules (Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005), the option to pay tax by way of composition shall not be available to a dealer, who makes inter-State purchase. The Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority, on app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. Anantha Padmanabha Bhat, rightly relied upon by the KAT, this Court has held that the vitrified tiles used in the restaurant owned by the assessee therein, were not sold by him in the regular course of business but they were used for the flooring of the restaurant. Hence, it had become part of the immovable property. It is held thus in that case: "7. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a restaurant only and is engaged in the business of serving vegetarian food and not engaged in the business of sale of Vitrified Tiles. In the restaurant, the Vitrified Tiles in question were not sold by him in the regular course of business, but were used only for the purpose of flooring of the restaurant premises. When so fixed in the floor, the Vit....