TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to as, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal rejected the request of the assessee to reduce the VAT on iron and steel incorporated in the works contract from 12.5% to 4%. 2. The brief facts for the disposal of the revision petition are, the petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'KVAT Act') that undertakes construction of residential flats. The petitioner filed the return of income for the tax periods of the year 2005-06, declaring VAT at 12.5% to the tune of Rs. 21,91,12,429/- on the value of iron and steel incorporated in the works contract. The return filed by the petitioner was assessed under Section 38 of the KVAT Act. 3. Subsequently, the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and Learned Counsel Sri. Sandeep Huilgol for respondent. 7. Apart from urging several contentions learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that 'iron and steel' is considered as a 'declared good' under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act') and hence, as per Section 14 and 15 of the CST Act read with Article 286 of the Constitution, the prescribed authority ought to have reduced the VAT on iron and steel incorporated in the works contract from 12.5% to 4%. He further submitted that as per Section 15 of the CST Act, every sales tax law of the State shall not levy tax of more than 4% on the sale or purchase of declared goods. 8. Learned Counsel further contended that as per Article 265 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duary rate at 12.5%, since the same would be covered under 'other goods'. 12. He also contended by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES AND ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536, that even if the contentions of the petitioner are assumed to be correct, it is not known, as to whether the petitioner has passed on the burden to pay duty to other parties during the relevant year and as such unjust enrichment cannot be allowed. For all these reasons it is prayed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 13. The STRP was admitted on 29.08.2023 to examine the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16. In the similar circumstance a coordinate bench of this Court in NANDI CONSTRUCTIONS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (STRP No. 216/2015 and Connected matters) has held that no benefit other than the benefit claimed in revised return or original return can be allowed by the re-assessment Authorities or the 1st Appellate Authority. Thus, the fact scenario is squarely covered as per the decision of the Coordinate bench in NANDI CONSTRUCTIONS (supra). The relevant extract is produced hereunder: "6. The main issue to be decided by this court is as to whether the petitioner can be granted benefit over and above that what has been claimed in the returns filed by the assessee for the relevant tax periods. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat even long after the expiry of the period in which the revised return could have been filed, the fact remains that there is no response by filing any revised returns. In such a position, we are of the view that the first appellate authority did go out of its duties and responsibilities and acted out of its jurisdiction to entertain a claim for deduction of input-tax rebate in favour of the assessee by accepting some material, purporting it to be based on the books of accounts and the purchase invoices, etc., and in granting reliefs to the assessee. We find, it is a case of the first appellate authority acting more loyal than the king, even though a claim had not been put forth by the assessee through the returns, the first appellate auth....