TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive effect. Therefore, if the goods are supplied by the assessee to the taluk panchayat, the assessee cannot rely upon the first notification and at best if any supply is made subsequent to second notification, such concession can be made applicable. Even otherwise we cannot consider assessee as an aggrieved person. If the taluk panchayat has purchased A.C. sheets from the assessee, it is for the taluk panchayat to pay the tax as prescribed under the Sales Tax Act. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. - 1 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2008 - MANJUNATH K.L. AND NAGARATHNA B.V. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by K.L. MANJUNATH J. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Zone I, Bangalore dated November 8, 2006. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax exercising its powers conferred under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act issued a show-cause notice on February 7, 2005 stating that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) in the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the concession shown to zilla panchayat under the notification dated March 30, 1996 cannot be extended to gram panchayat or the taluk panchayat and the Government in its wisdom in view of section 8A has granted concession to particular class of persons Therefore, held that the facts of K.P. Varghese case [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC); AIR 1981 SC 1922 are different from the case of the assessee and allowed the revision and restored the order passed by the assessing authority on December 11, 2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 by setting aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals). This order is called in question in this appeal raising the following substantial question of law: Whether the first respondent is justified in setting aside the order of the second respondent dated October 20, 2004 in rejecting the concessional rate of tax at four per cent on the supply made by the appellant to taluk panchayat in terms of the notification dated March 30, 1996? The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 1698 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted before. Zilla panchayats as well as taluk panchayats are created under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 and the gram panchayats, taluk panchayats and zilla panchayats are the creation of the Government and all the three institutions ought to be considered as local bodies created by the Government and therefore, when concessional tax is given to zilla panchayat, it would automatically extended to gram panchayat and taluk panchayat and that a liberal interpretation has to be extended while interpreting the first notification of the year 1996 and similarly relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese case [1981] 131 ITR 597; AIR 1981 SC 1922: . . . It is now a well-settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the court may modify the language used by the Legislature or even 'do some violence' to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction vide Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1964] 54 ITR 692; [1963] AC 557. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok place, be assessed to tax or taxes under the appropriate provisions of this Act as if the provisions of the notification under sub-section (1) did not apply to such sales or purchases. (5) (a) Where any restriction or condition specified under sub-section (2) in respect of goods taxable at the point of sale is contravened or is not observed by the purchaser of such goods, notwithstanding that such a purchaser is not a dealer or that the sale value of such goods is less than the turnover specified in sub-section (5) of section 5, such purchaser shall be liable to pay an amount equal to the difference between the tax payable at the rates specified under the Act and the tax paid at the rates specified under the notification on the goods purchased in respect of which such contravention or nonobservance has taken place, as if the provisions of the notification under sub-section (1) did not apply to such purchase and in addition, such purchaser shall also be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding the amount equivalent to the amount of tax leviable on the sale price of such goods. (b) The difference of the tax amount and the penalty levied under this sub-section sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
