,L IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF NOVEMER, 2009 PRESENT THE HON'BLE M. JUSTICE K.L. MANJHNATH AND H . THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AaAvi§Dj$finASl_l. S.T.R.P.Nof25JgCS7[ofrV'l ' u BETWEEN: I bml: 1 d State of Karnatakael u b S ._e R/by Commissioner of Commerciala Taxes, VTK Buildlng,"" ' " Gandhinagar, Banga1eree9Lg,l~o .. PETITIONER ~(By,Smt:éeeEha>Menon; Govt. Advocate) AND: M/s RatnaVInduStrles, 4§angalofelRoad} §Chal1akere}~-V ----- d«,xR/by its Manager. .. RESPONDENT
:f_7ec”(Ey_id?ocate Sri.G.Rabinathan)
‘This STEP is filed under Sec.23(1) of The KST
« .Act against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2096
“.paSsed in STA No.1347/2004 on the file of The
TKarnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing
‘”the appeal.
fhis ?etiti¢n is mowing an fa: fifigi fiéaring
this day! MAKJURAEH J. mafia the follgwifigz “– ”
The assessee is 锧§alef.unfie§€gfi% §%¢viéi0n3
af the KarnatakavS§1es¥Ta#Q Tag i§ &eé£er of fried
gram and based i–;1»g;’ biotificaticn
flamed 31.3_,1§s§ as fried gram
were ¢la’sfis:é;_f and accarciizzgly tax
use Em-fi&Jl§£ie&; §hé*H$n’ble Supreme Court in
= vs. srgrz $2′ 2a:ss:mA
§RA§ESfi°H§95 S§C53§§) held that fried gram is
éiffgkent §ram_MEanga1 _____ gram and the aforesaié
; §§égme$t’§é$_delivered an 23®8.1§$4. Even though
éhégjfiééggfifi wag deiivared by the Hanfble Supreme
cou§tz Qfi ’23.S.1§94 there was as aarrasyending
” g¢hamgeHia the Gvernmnt Eatificaticn in ragaré ta
}i$Qy sf tax an Sengal Gram ag wall as firieé gramk
” fé$§er sf asaessmant far the year 1§§5w§? was
pafised Eewyim tax at tha gate cf 2¢25% basaé an
tha jug: amt fif the H9§’bi& Sggrag Qaart @$%§
ffiw
& d,i;€f%Kez:t rates»
-3-
titwugh notificatian was mat withdrawn
Subsequently, an 3. ractifiaatian.W.,.é.}3*_§;§I£–i§:aa,ti§::: ~
arder of rectificatien was pa5.;sse§:fi 3}jr;*eucjif:J{:<:::.3".i1?1§'VV':.:ZI.':__ é;..,:%:.é.a;*€; "
fram 1 .25% to 1% , thereafter Jadéffiiz Co:r£éL¥,s$;:§.ez_':i;ar%
Commercial Eaxes, §ava:1age'£?é.:._V"vx*e§§riéééaéi 1 fiheivgarder of
reatificatien and "s".':a.f_'V». n.:'tffi:’!;’.:’:’_qfgvcétian was
get asidsa and §::Zr*ze c%};*:’zffi£%$ ifaurt
§¢;e3éégi»%2’AABez:ga1 gram mad fzsiesd gram aura traatezzi as
and attraats galeg tax at
ficaaréing ta the ;eame& Qmrt.
éfiémcatag mvegz tizmzgh the aariiax natificatian wag $15″;
raw
2″‘
%
5.»/’
-:§.m
withfirawmg in vigw $5 tfia law laifi d§%fi by ifi
Eimfiisla Supzraaaa Cmzrt tax has
treating fried gram as 3. dViff€:=;’€f3*f:,’A.Cfi3iT§;§i?f{;K2§.’§.;-E3?”4:”- ,__’
3. §er mantra, aauzase}. z5_a§:—._thewaa::*~;@S.é-;at2%._”«e’:;:::»:’:–%:er”;d.;*3.L’
that evazz fihcizgh tlge ggsurt has
éeciaea the issue in G%§u£g§[$£3§fi$i1; flaw? (cited
fiupra} , as thé ééazfiier’ §<fsu%;;.i.ficatian has
mat bean .._"§.?,*vr;=;«;'§i§v'§'}zQt.ifiz:atior: has
beer: is§:§i,€éL%.; éiré' gcrvernad by the
GQ%zermm2%"t:A 'fictijif not based at": the law
éeclareé. "i::s.?':§' . Afiufixiama Cmzrt in the said
: §:aa:x:%ftiz;i::.§;"§;a;;:?VA cgaaea H "~'.}.:'–*hex°e£o.z':a,, ha requestg the amzrt
té. _ 't;?:9:e_ V 1?-é»:vis3;m: petal ti on .
— ‘E§;€kiz:c3.”%§fa*sa?rd. the aaunsei fer the parties, we
nczst any qtzastiong at’ law arisa in this
a?3?’;’L.:’5$2′;~%._l» “‘A_«£3’.i?z€:;e the Gawrmmnt fiotifiaatisn fiataé;
H -;1% ir.3.f§.98«§ has ifiét. keen withérawn by Ehe Qafimmmat
33$? even thaugh Supzfezm Qmzrt had. fificlageé
” the Bengal Gram anfi Friad fixam 33 fiffarent
<53"
mfiw
cammadities. If the Gcwernmnt has cémfiifiaed a
mistaka withcut bringing ta the n§ti§¢ f¢§- flhe
assessee, Assassing Gffiaerg ~w1::-zrzntst Bdaiil. V”uipg:>z’§._V tv4.he ‘
a$sessee ta pay tax at a higher rfit¢.Whefif§é has”!
mat callected the amwufifi in view g§ g$é g%fiaxnm&§t
Ratificatian, b
5, in the circufi$£afi;¢fi;u”Q¢®.dg not see afiy
substantial _qges:i¢aCj§§Q;§$w §£ises in this
revisicn.5~§g¢%¥flifi§;§%_tfié §%£iH1on is dismissed’
3d/-es;
Tucigté
3&5
Eufige
A”‘”VRf2611G§