Karnataka High Court
Grasim Industries Limited vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 31 March, 2009
'«{.§§ -E§'::i:i<3,g (ix ?ar'frifige, fifivacatas)
m THE HIGH com? 0:? KmHm§$;*e:g5"j%%»}.L% H
omen}? mama AT aimawam w '
§fi'I'E5 THIS mm 31% pays? m;R7c}:1'2k)§9 ' ~ M'
TEE Hoxmm hm. atiszfxcfi' L-._ Mfigwmgra '
1':-{E §iQ3\¥'EL§i§ _«JiIST§_€:;E: gawafn Maia
3.323.? figs? 4: {gawk
iZ3~:1"'¢as.:-;§§m"'T§n;*§.%.j?nS'{:iéf;#';"fiémited "
{ I} ivim, Bfiizi ' E:--:1,::3:°r1.a¥10.na}:V_Marlaathzg Csrpn .}
§{umar&pama3éu.:£3.8A1»T.1§:1£§ _
Ravmi' ;¥3is§riCa;_ i<i;a:z'1'1:::\a%;.:--1}{s;
f3€pI'€S€i1f§€Ci Ezafsiri A
fissistant iZ§~r=;_n::::?a;i Maaéger {Legal}
3113:5331 Hegde V
.. ---------- §*E'3"i"'£'I$HE1%
Tigié Sééifi éf Kamaiaka
Rfipfésifmifid by Ehfi
= .. Cgmmissionsr Qf Commerciai "'§'axc~:§§
" _'i2'9;:1ijya 'I'ha1:ig€ Kazyaiaya
ifizfiiciasa Réafl, C%a:r1.dhinagar
Bazagalare 560 099
. .. RE8?GHDE1'§'I'
{By Sré. K. G. Aéhyapak, fififij
23m? fxieai was 23 {1} 9f the KS'? Ac: {ha
Judgment and zorder éated {38.()'?.:ZG()5 passrgii STA
Nt:;.2;;"S'?O/ 2094 on ma ms: of the. Kma:ggg'«--.'gp_ge.§::g:a_
Tribunai, Ba_t1gaiv::sre, digmissing the agpeal.
'flies: STEP C2:::ming 0:1. ~fcaf'_ "?Tf{.ifi$_'.'.":".(i§"3i§,7,V
RAKJUNATH. J, mania the fcflowiingz j
9m._..._%Rn%i=:
The subgiantial qu;c'§.3'éii23;1'VV.»_Vc«f 'im€_ Hafises for
consideration in this apgiesl is: j u
'whetherythe cef§e€_'bfiax3_pu:~<:%1:aéfcri by the assesses
and expéfigéd aé; csifaée "'§3r:;a'r:i"*;.=_.ftér curring hag is be
1v:{:on;S?fi5£:iw§:d..VV_ as <3-né-.V.and.' ths sama and whetgher {ha
assesses' '~f;€%"c}aim fixerizgtiozz 11:1d{*::'* Ssctian
593$ um t_:sT*.;éc::?5
" Lfitgring §h£"';idursa of a'rgum€m:s, it is brought $.23 ihfi
L' V§:§$€i:.:e"-.;jfi" . f'.1::<§V 'uisarfied Smiioz: Cognac}; appearing fog' the
firifiiiaxzer the queséisfl 0:" iaw .i2;:%;02ve:§ in fiiifi Revisiazz
?€ti'ii.:.:»:§'§s §q:;a1t1}? cavemfi by the fifaégmeni af this if';{3ur': in
V' mm 'E'E& ::w., 153, sm'ra Q? E{§sRNz?xT,A§{;% dated
°;;?§1.20as in STEP M33; 2095, whfirein a Bivifiien Bench
u #3' this Court, in which 6118 of us {KLMJ) is 3 party has mica
that {ha bangs' cczfiiefi, uncumfi ctafiéét or a Cfigfifi hearty are 03:15
%/
and the SS-11116 anci the asssssea is emitled fer €:x@_I:33.§"é*i§5:§LVV
unstier Sectian 5(3) of the CST Act.
3. Accordingly, the substailtiétl cfi§£svti0n'i}1Vé:$
ham: heki in favmir of tha petitig)ner'i.:;"'the affixfcsgid éa$7(:, 'V
Since the facis in this case are oizgégarxd £116 sama'; nit: aiiswer
the questian of law fr*am:%{i..,haI*ei:1"VL.f:g.v;§$u: of tEé"as§esse¢.
In the result, the Revfiion ivyfiflflwfid and 'dim
orcler passerzi Tribunai dates}
09.04.2007
1 4:fl§3ls;:’3’n ‘ §1:) é.sseri by the Joint
comm’ssi£;na- 4′ cf;a§:;§i:;:if-» (}8.{3’}7,_;?;i3=f§iZ:”{ in appeal N0. sm
257%/2084 .Af£:1 é§1{.r€ and ‘B’ are hereby quashed.
. «. A learnsd ASA is permitted to {:13
43¢”-9
Sd/-E
Judge
Sd/~
Judge
3311*