TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale consideration. We are unable to accept such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as nothing more than what is claimed by the assessee in its return can be given by the authorities, and if it is permitted, then the assessing authority or the appellate authorities would be given unfettered powers to grant any such relief which may not even have been claimed by the assessee in its returns. The Act provides for filing a revised return under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. If the assessee fails to avail the benefit of filing revised return, then it is only the return which is filed, which has to be considered by the assessing officer or other authorities and nothing more than what is clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, for the purpose of calculation of tax, was taken at 45% only. While passing the said order, the first appellate authority relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Infinite Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore, reported in 2013 (76) Kar. L.J 390. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal claiming the land cost be allowed at 50% of the sale consideration. The appeals have been dismissed by a common reasoned order, which is under challenge in these revision petitions. 4. We heard Sri T.N.Keshava Murthy, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds land cost. The question now to be decided is whether unless a claim is made by the assessee in its return (and without the same being revised or modified by filing a revised return), any benefit beyond the benefit claimed in the return can be considered and allowed by the authorities. 7. In our view the answer would be a clear no. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Infinite Builders and Developers, Bangalore (supra) was considering a case where the first appellate authority had granted a benefit more than what was claimed by the assessee. The same was denied by this Court, with the following observations: 43. The assessee never filed any revised return in respect of the period from April 2005 to March 2006 nor claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have no reason to differ with the opinion of the two Division Benches. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the question in the aforesaid cases was regarding grant of input tax rebate as a deduction, whereas in the present case, according to the petitioner, the claim is exclusion of land cost and as once the authority has accepted it to be higher than 50%, no tax could be levied on such amount which was beyond 50% of the sale consideration. We are unable to accept such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as nothing more than what is claimed by the assessee in its return can be given by the authorities, and if it is permitted, then the assessing authority or the appellate authorities would be given unfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
