TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents ORDER In these petitions, the petitioner is praying for quashing annexure P reassessment order dated October 8, 2010 for the period November, 2005 to June 2010 and to issue a mandamus declaring the levy of VATby the first respondent on the gross amount received towards supply, handling, high lifting, transportation and loading are taxable under section 65(105)(zzt) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel has relied upon several decisions in support of his argument and also argued accordingly. The Government Pleader relying on the Division Bench of this court in S.T.A.No. 84 of 2009 decided on July 8, 2010 (Apco Concrete Block and Allied Products v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Audit 1, Bangalore [2011] 44 VST 312 (Karn)) submitted, as per the definition under sections 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the apex court in the case of Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. v. Union of India [2005] 1 VST 180 (SC); [2004] 135 STC 480 (SC); [2006] 3 STR 260, tried to contend that the delivery of article from the manufacturing point to the destination is in the form of outdoor service and it is liable to be covered under the service tax and not under the VAT Act. The Government Pleader al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clarification issued therein, the appellate authority may not be in a position to take a different view in the matter to distinguish and interpret the same. In the circumstances, it is advisable for the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the matter as it involved disputed question of fact and law and whether it falls within the purview of Service Tax Act or VATAct. Whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
