9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 18 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and thereby set aside the order passed by the revisional authority dated March 24, 2007 and restored the order dated August 1, 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under rule 166(7) and the respondent was granted benefit of adjustment of the amounts as indicated in form VAT270 dated August 3, 2005 issued therein. The material facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The respondent herein is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter called "Act"). An application was filed claiming benefit under section 18 of the Act contending that the applicant had paid sales tax as well as value added tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated March 24, 2007 and restored the order passed by the assessing officer granting benefit under section 18 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this appeal contending that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of section 18 of the transitional provisions of the Act. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the revision-petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Government Advocate submitted that section 18 is not applicable to the respondent as the respondent is not manufacturing or reselling the vehicle but is only leasing the vehicle which is deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessing officer by setting aside the order of the revisional authority, was justified. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and scrutinized the material on record. The material on record would clearly show the fact that the respondent assessee has paid sales tax on the vehicles purchased and has also paid value added tax on the lease transaction which is deemed to be a "sale" under the Act is not in dispute. However, application of the assessee was filed claiming benefit under section 18 of the transitional provision for the period from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005. The material on record would clearly show that in the absence of the dispute on the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act for the purchase of the vehicle on lease and also value added tax has been paid for the period from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005 and therefore, the fact that the transaction in question is covered by the transition provision, cannot be disputed. It is clear from the order passed by the Tribunal which is a final authority on the question of fact that the Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for restoring the order of the assessing officer by setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority which was impugned before the Tribunal. Following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1995 SC 142, the concept of ownership as an exclusive right to the owner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
