9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and also Central Sales Tax Act carrying on business on development of land and construction of buildings, which falls under entry 11 of the Sixth Schedule. It is contended by the appellant that originally on the returns submitted by him for the year 1999-2000 the assessing authority has passed assessment order on March 7, 2003, levying Rs. 1,40,000 by TDS which was already paid by TDS. It is also not in dispute that when the assessee filed revised return voluntarily, the assessing authority reopened the assessment under section 12A and passed orders on October 27, 2003, as per annexure C. Later on the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo motu revision proceedings. There was assessment on the revised returns of the party an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is caused to the assessee. It is further contended that the account books would reflect that the amounts spent towards the labour and other like charges can totally be deducted as they are reflected in the account books and none of the authorities have taken into consideration such expenditure made by the appellant/assessee, apparent in the books of accounts. Per contra, learned Government Advocate brought to our notice the various provisions applicable to the facts of the present case and so also the admission and acceptance of the orders at annexure B by the appellant/ assessee in view of not filing any appeal, as provided under section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. We have gone through the entire annexures brought before us. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 per cent. When this order came to be made on January 13, 2006, apparently, the assessee did not challenge this order though there was scope and provision to challenge the said order under section 22 of the Act, by taking the matter before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Till today, no such appeal has been filed by him. When things stood as stated above, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes suo motu took up the orders at annexure B, as there was revised returns, etc., in the case of this assessee and gave opportunity to the appellant to explain why the restriction of deduction should not be fixed at 20 per cent instead of 30 per cent, as contemplated under rule 6(4)(m) of the Rules. It was replied by the assessee and persona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owards labour charges (and other like charges) for erection, installation, fixing, fitting out, or commissioning of the goods specified in the said serial numbers; (iii) all amounts received in respect of goods which specifically exempted from tax under any of the provisions of the Act; (iv) all amounts paid to sub-contractors as the consideration for execution of works contract whether wholly or partly: Provided that, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the dealer claiming deduction produces proof that the sub-contractor is a registered dealer liable to tax under the Act and that the turnover of such amounts is included in the monthly statement or return of turnover, as the case may be, filed by such sub-contractor; (v) such amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase of any goods which are specifically exempted from tax under any of the provisions of the Act; (iii) all amounts paid to sub-contractors as the consideration for execution of works contract whether wholly or party: Provided that, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the dealer claiming deduction produces proof that the sub-contractor is a registered dealer liable to tax under the Act and that the turnover of such amounts is included in the monthly statement or return of turnover, as the case may be, filed by such, sub-contractor; (iv) such amounts towards 'labour charges and other like charges' not involving any transfer of property in goods actually incurred in connection with the execution of works contract, or (v) su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy stated above, when he did not choose to file the appeal under section 22 of the Act challenging annexure B, he could not have come before this court challenging the same. The remedy open to him was before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Now we have to consider and restrict our order to annexures A and C where there was a fair opportunity available to the appellant/assessee and the reduction of 20 per cent from 30 per cent was in accordance with the Rules contemplated under the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. As stated above, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax in his orders at annexure A has referred to all the provisions of law, both the sections and the Rules as referred to above and, has clearly stated how the deduction of lab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
