TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessing authority dated February 26, 2007 stands restored. - STRP Nos. 84 of 2009, STRP Nos. 71, STRP Nos. 72, STRP Nos. 73, STRP Nos. 74, STRP Nos. 75, STRP Nos. 76 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2011 - SABHAHIT V.G. AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. ORDER These appeals are by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in partly allowing the appeals of the assesse thereby setting aside the order of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 engaged in the manufacturing and trading of domestic appliances, such as, colour television, DVD, audio music systems, air cooler and air conditioners, washing machines, mixers and grinders, micro ovens, water purifiers, kitchen appliances, toaster, iron box, spares, etc. On December 4, 2006, the Deputy Commissioner visited the assessee's premises for auditing the books of accounts. On verification of the books of accounts for the period April, 2006 to October, 2006, it was found that the assessee had issued credit notes to the customers on monthly sales performance basis incentives, subsequent to the issue of tax invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of rule 3(2)(c) has been upheld. He contends that rule 3(2)(c) is ultra vires the Constitution of India. That the Tribunal having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly held in favour of the assessee by deleting the tax demanded. That the records would disclose that the credit notes have been issued in terms of section 30 of the KVATAct. He accordingly pleads that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for any interference and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Heard counsels. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is justified in ordering to allow exemption towards deduction much against to the provisions of the Act or Rules? (ii) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is justified in transgressing the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder and accord benefit to the respondent-company much against to their own limited powers as submitted above? (iii) Whether the order dated April 24, 2009 passed in STA No. 985 to 991 of 2008 is contrary to law and facts? The validity of rule 3(2)(c) was sought to be challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudice, the writ petition is dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner therein preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No. 1198 of 2008, wherein by the order dated March 11, 2010, the writ appeal was disposed of on certain terms. The Division Bench of this court noted the submissions of the appellant than the constitutional validity challenged in the writ petition, which has been urged in the writ appeal, would not be pressed in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the submission was noted and on merits of the appeal, the matter was remanded. The counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the Division Bench has not recorded a finding upholding the order passed by the learned single judge and consequently, he is entitled to contend that rule 3(2)(c) is ultra vires section 30 and ultra vires the Constitution of India. We are unable to accept the said contention. The constitutional validity and the validity of rule 3(2)(c) with section 30 of the Act having been held to be intra vires, the writ petition challenging the same was dismissed. The grounds urged in the writ petition challenging the validity were not pressed in the writ appeal. Therefore, the findings recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the action of the Tribunal would border on contempt of court arising as a situation of obstructing the course of justice. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in dwelling upon this aspect with regard to the validity and adjudication with regard to the conflict as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the entire matter having since been seized and covered by the earlier judgments of this court as mentioned hereinabove, the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned order. The proviso to rule 3(2)(c) reads as follows: 3 . . . (2) . . . (c) . . . Provided that such discount is allowed in accordance with the regular practice of the dealer or is in accordance with the terms of any contract or agreement entered into in a particular case (and the tax invoice or bill of sale issued in respect of the sales relating to such discount shows that amount allowed as discount); and Provided further that the accounts show that the purchaser has paid only the sum originally charged less discount. Therefore, the tax invoice issued in respect of sales must show and disclose the amount of discount tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
