High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs M/S Reliance Industries Limited on 16 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs M/S Reliance Industries Limited on 16 February, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF FEBRUARY, zfiio

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE M. JUSTICE K.L. MA#JvNATH_"

AND

THE HON'BLE Mas. JUSTICE afv. NAGARATHNA"*

STRP No.i;i/2008*.l"7
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka, _p._Vp--.
R/by the Sec:etary"tdvQoVt;,x .
Finance Department; 3"" ",*<«--
Vidhana $ofidhe,j _:K3p 5 a pa
Bangaloreflgls '*»pafA'»= g ' .. PETITIONER
(By Go§£;§5d§§¢a:e Smt,éeetha Menon)
AND:
M/s ReliafiEepInfiuetries Ltd.,

_.No.7?/C} II FloQ:,a
"D.K}Lane,'Chikpet,

AV_EangalQre+53?a .. RESPONDENT

(Bfxa6voeates”$ti.G.Rabinathan & M.Thirumalesh)

n¢h;s STRP is filed under Sec.23(l) of KST Act

x’a§alnst§ the order dated 12.2.2008 passed in STA

H¢.410/2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate

R”T;lbfinal, Bangalore, allowing the appeal and

9,

directing the AA to issue revised demand notices
accordingly.

This Petition is coming on for finala hearing

this day, NAGARATHNA J. made the following§_Tu.

O R D E~Rm4

This revision petition has> been .filed: by Fthe
State challenging the order dated l2:2i2$Q8 passed in
STA 4310/2007 by Ka_’rnati’a.1$gavvi'”-Appellate Tribunal,

Bangalore.

2. The reievahtf £;cps_ off the case are that the
respondentfassessee–gisg engaged in the business of
trading in polyester yarn and other such materials

and is a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka

_ Value Added Tax Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as

TfTh§,Act”}vand Central Sales Tax Act,l956. For the

period’from_April,2006 to September,2006 respondent

filedfl monthly returns under the provisions of

_:”secI35(1l of the Act R/w Rulew38 of Karnataka Value

.Added Tax Rules,2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The

“Rnles’). Claiming deduction in the total turn over

A/’/’

allowed to its purchasers which has resulted in
reduction of taxable turn over relating to goods sold
during the said months. Respondefit!§hedr,issued
invoices for the sales effected during the eeie peeled
and had charged sales tax for goods at the rate e£_§%
under the Act separfitelygp * V

3. According to the respondentg*incentive scheme was
extended to its ‘purchasers_ tor encourage them to
purchase higher quantities ofVgoods and make payments

towards the gceds purchased for which respondent had

issued credit dates in every month and allowed certain
discount ‘to _itsc*buyers subsequent to tax invoices

already issued undernthe provisions of Sec.29 of the

” Act §ndL§flles madevthereunder. On account of the said

VgschemeVof incentives and the issuance of credit notes

and By way hf trade discounts which has resulted in

hreduced taxable turn over relating to the goods sold

{for particular months for which respondent had claimed

‘”reduction in the amount of tax from the total turnover

‘flcor the said months. fiyfi

(1

to encourage the purchasers credit notes are issued
which would mean that the amounts at which invoices
were issued would automatically be reducedg to the
extent of credit notes given to various pnfnhaners and
that the tribunal was justified vgrovtev:
said fact and granting benefit with regar37§5X#@dfiCéd
turn over by allowing nthe Happealgwtiled bpl the

respondent.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in

di9PuVe “”” “that din “terms “of the incentive scheme
respondent has given to its various purchasers credit

notes withg the ;putpote of encouraging’ thenl to sell

” greater :quantities’ of its products and also with

.Hregard”to prompt repayment. The issuance of the credit

notest wodldi automatically” mean that the amounts as

dmentioned in the invoices would be reduced which would

»result in reduction in the over all turn over relating

ig ~t¢ the goods sold for the particular month. However,

dkwe find that the tribunal has not taken into

ix.

1-. law

assessing authority as well as the first appellate
authority.

9. From the material on record, it is not known as
to whether the details as stated in §ule;3l of the
Rules had been furnished by the assessee tei the
assessing authority at the time or rdeidinsxhenetit
under the said Rule. Under the oircuestanoesfl We deem
it proper to remand the .matter yfifi dthe dassessing
authority with a direotion to the respondentmassessee

to furnish all details of Rule–31 of the

re–consider the entire matter in the light of the said
provisions and pass fresh orders in accordance with

19. gFor the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition

dd is allowedif

aizaaeea