2023 (5) TMI 969

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted to consider following questions of law: a) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the orders dated 04.11.2010 and 11.03.2011 are without jurisdiction since the respondent was registered during the periods in question? b) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that charges collected by the Respondent for supplying and installation of goods in respect of internet and cable services provide by the Respondent to its customers are not taxable under the KVAT Act? 2. Heard Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned AGA for the Revenue and Smt. Pallavi Shridhar, learned Advocate for the Assessee. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, assessee is a registered company and a Licensed Multiple System....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, it is liable to be assessed to tax under Section 38(7) of the KVAT Act; * though the AO has passed order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, it is in fact an order under Section 38(7) of the KVAT Act and mere fact that a wrong provision is quoted, it does not mean that the order is without jurisdiction; * assessee has installed cables and other equipments in order to provide internet and cable services to its customers; * it is settled that transferring the right to use goods is deemed to be a sale for the purpose of the KVAT Act and therefore the said transactions are taxable under the Act; * the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons as to why assessee's activity do not amount to sale of goods. 5. Opposing the submiss....