HQTHE}fiC%ICOURT(fl?KARNATAKAAflW&MNGALORE
DATED THIS THE I51' DAY OF' OCTOBER 20
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MA1\fJULA'C'I:4::ELLVI.JvRV I u
AND
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE K.OOV7NDAIP§AJIj*LIji;
S.T.A I06'/'A009
BETWEEN: " M. ' % %
POETIC INTERIORS & CON_STRUCTfIO--N. _
PVT. LTD., 1
NO.1889,8'1'*'*CR0?5E3'
HALIIISTAOE = A _ .
T}IIPPASAIID'I§A.' "
BANGPLLORE.
= A * " ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1. M'/S_4KI'¥IIV§AI14I'9i.'.8: SRLARAVIND KAMATH,
J.BENO,,ADV'S.)V * '
THE KARNATAK A
~. TITROIUGII: 'THE SEC RETARY
FI4NANVCE'L)EPARTMENT
VIDIIAN SOUDHA
BANGALORE W 1.
.,_TI5-TE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-I
GANDHINAGAR
" BANGALORE W 560 009.
t\)
3. THE DEPUTY COMMESSIONER 0?
COMMERCIAL TAXIES (RICCOVERY - '13)
SRINIVASA COM¥"'I,I£X
SI-1ESI'"£ADRI} 'URf\M
BANGALORE.
[BY SRI.S.SUJATHA. AGA)
>ll==£=
RES;>oN1§§:N'rg *7 _ "
THIS STA FILED U/S' 24(1)
AGAINST THE .RI3\/ISION O'mj£:.R DATED..V.12.77:1IV;2OO8
PASSED IN NO.ZAC~l/DVO»1R-~~--é£; _'8/S.MRA6§"81 .250/0e»07
T7778/08~09 ON THE=.%'1LE._L C.)F COMMISSEONER
TAXES, BANGLAORE, ORDER OF
ASSESSMENT_, x.V;1'rH REVISING THE
AI«'oRESA1D___ A<:_e'eRD:._N(;:LY_ . EEONCLUDE '1'm«:
REVISION RRQe.E»§;;3i'1\:§;«SI77.* 'a V
"1*R_I1S--_ S.TflA.. 7 FOR ADMISSION BEFORE
THE COURT 'arm-3- D1{W; MANJULA CHELLUR. J
DEL1v_1~:RED"TH13:.RQ1,1;Qw1'Ne: -
JUDGMENT
Rearmed eeunsel for the appellant and
Cpvernrneni Advocate representing Revenue.
2. The appeilamt is a proprietorship (?(JI’1CE’I”I]
engagged in the business of interior dectoratiorl work on
1.1
assessee in his monthly reports as well as revised
returns and also the turn over estimated
Intelligence Wing of the Department is substahutially—itliel _
same. if at all the purchase billsHoutside”thie» ll ‘*
Karnataka are part of t.he reetorclg” ..unlress~ l”the:f’e-._
material to show that t.hose_”goodsA’~W:ere_ into
local area, opinion of that
for the contract appellant»
assessee outside must have
been used-.”‘ l’ the contract
agreem.cnt~ is just and proper.
Sirnilarly, lsrrihaterial to show that the
goods purehas’edVViu3fA’–the°:appellant were used resulting
‘win addifferent forrr1’;””the appellanbassessee was entitled
the cost of the material as per the
to Rule 6(4) of the KST Rules of 1957.
the reasons above, we are of the opinion that
_ ‘the. Revisionexl Authority was incorrect in setting aside
orders of the first Appellate Authority. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed confirming the orders of the First
— “””””m->–‘v>-wwow<»»w.4 W Wm" W
Appellate Autho1"ity~J0'1n1i Commisz-3i0ne"r of Commerciai
Taxes.
SS/–