9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, "the Act"). The controversy relates to assessment year 2002-03. The appellant had filed the revision petitions questioning correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in S.T.A. Nos. 798-801 of 2003. The appeals were filed before the Tribunal under section 22(1) of the Act against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as, "the Appellate Authority"). The said authority confirmed the provisional assessment orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as, "the Assessing Authority") for the months of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 17(7) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act effective April 1, 2002." Section 17(7) of the Act which has been introduced by the Karnataka Amendment Act 5 of 2002, with effect from April 1, 2002 reads as under: "Nothing contained in sub-section (6) shall apply to a dealer who purchases or receives goods from outside the State for the purpose of using such goods in the execution of works contract." The Legislature by introducing the above amendment to sub-section (7) of section 17 of the Act has restricted the benefit of composition amount for a dealer liable to tax under section 5B of the Act. By this amended provision, the Legislature mandates that a dealer who purchases or receives goods from outside the State for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has clear application. The stand taken before the Tribunal and the High Court was reiterated in these appeals. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that if the dealer wanted the benefit of sub-section (6) of section 17, it was required to submit an application within one hundred and twenty days from the date of commencement of the assessment year. The amended provision of sub-section (7) of section 17 came into effect from April 1, 2002. The amended provision clearly excludes the dealer from the benefit of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Act if he purchases or receives goods from outside the State for the purposes of using such goods in the execution of the wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 were given effect to from April 1, 2002. In view of the restriction imposed under the amended provision, the assessing authority could not have permitted the appellant- company to elect to pay the tax under section 17(6) of the Act, since admittedly the appellant received the goods by way of stock transfers from outside the State for the purpose of using such goods in the execution of works contract. Therefore, the first question of law raised by the appellant has been rightly answered against the assessee. The language used in sub-section (7) of section 17 is very clear. It is to the effect that if a dealer purchases or receives goods from outside the State for execution of works contract within the State it is not entitled to the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
