E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25" DAY or FEBRUARY, 2010
?RESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNAT§H
AND .._...
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NA§AAAigfiA'
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka, AWd'D
R/by the Secretary}d V d
Finance Departménfi§*V
Vidhana Soudh?;da:rA¥
Bangalorewl. dd
PETITIONER
(By sr:,T.KfVedg@u;uAyg_Heap)
AND:
M/s Anjana zardadAgéndieS,
362{4, Shiyaygna Math Road,
Devaraj"Mohalla, Mysore~24.
R/by'thaDGene;a;xManager. .. RESPONDENT
(By.Advo¢a£¢fsri.B.p.Gandhi)
mAAThiédSTRP is filed under Sec 23(1) of the KST
RDfA§t[l957*~against the judgment and order dated
H =;d3Ig5E2OQ5 passed in STA. Nos.l601, 1602, 1603 &
“~-_16c4=nof 2004 on the file of the Karnataka
)3,
5′
afhaa attained finality and it was thereafter that
z'” Products Ltdfi that the State did not have power to
~r1falevy tax Lon the said. product. Therefore in the
‘«¢3tterE of considering ‘the exemption front levying
ud”Qf_sales tax, assessing authority is justified in
under Sec.l8~AA of the KST Act in the
absence of the dealer not establishing the
passing of the burden of tax to the
customers?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstafices of
the case, the sale price includes the tax
element warranting” the forfeiture” of Vtax
collected? d r” I ” if
3. Whether in the facts ahd’circumstances”ofh
the case, the Appellate ‘Tribunal_ was
justified in not following the law declared
by the Apex Court ifi- Mafatlalfsf case
reported in 111 sTC~_4″67? ‘ ” 1
3. We have heard the learned saga. Pleader for
the State and them learned icohnsel for the
re5P0ndent”aSSe§§$e.h I
4. It is ‘–submitt’ed”~._on.”behalf of the State that
the assesseént »for’»fifi§ years 1994»95 to 1997~98
the Apes Qoert had ruled in the matter of Kothari
/a
our View the same cannot be held to be just and
proper as the said order is based on mere surmises
and conjectures.
7. when such was the basis for the order eassed
by the Deputy Commissioner of Qommercial fares, itht
is not known as to under what basis the tribunal.
came to the conclusion that there has to he refund
of tax paid by the respondent for all the four
years. There was ‘no_ material« even before the
tribunal with regard to the question as to whether
there had» been gany rcollection of tax by the
assessee or as to whether it was entitled to any
refund. finder the_cifcumstances, we think it is
sjgst aha groper to remand the entire matter to the
‘assessing a”offiicer reserving liberty to the
resgonéentt to’ furnish all relevant materials
‘before , the assessing officer so that on
*2 consideration of the same appropriate order can bet
hV_yfiassed under Sec.18AA of the Act in accordance
“with law.
23/.
i’=._”a/110310
H}
8. Therefore, without answering the questions of
law raised. in ‘this revision. petition, matter is
remanded to the assessing officer and the petition
is allowed accordingly.