Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - [2015] 86 VST 35 (Kar) - Refund - Claim of exemption / rebate - sunflower cake and rice bran used as input in the extraction of sunflower oil/bran oil - refund was sought being eligible input rebate for the said period which had not been claimed in the original returns filed - Held that:- Infact the Division Bench has clearly held in M/s.M.K.Agro Tech (Private) Limited [2015 (1) TMI 854 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] to the effect that where a dealer is in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

17/2015(T-RES) - Dated:- 27-4-2015 - Arvind Kumar, J. Keshavamurthy T.N. for the dealers. T.K. Vedmurthy, High Court Government Pleader, for the respondents ORDER Petitioners are seeking for refund of ₹ 81,31,623/- (in W.P.1095-1100/2015) and Rs. 77,02,584/- (in W.P.412-417/2015) being the input tax rebate to be due to the petitioners for the tax periods February to July, 2014 (in both the writ petitions. 2. Factual matrix reads as under: Both petitioners are registered dealers under Karna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of M/s.M.K.Agro Tech (Private) Limited, Mandya District Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2014 (80) KLJ 1(DB) and held that when an assessee is in the manufacture of only one product namely oil which is liable to tax, merely because in the process of manufacture of oil certain ancillary or by-product arises which is sold and which is exempted from tax, that would not attract the provisions of section 17 relating to partial rebate. Hence, on the basis of law laid down by Division Bench of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12.2014 respectively whereunder first respondent has intimated the petitioners that on account of steps being taken for challenging the Judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of M/s.M.K.Agro Tech (Private) Limited, Mandya District Vs State of Karnataka by filing Special Leave Petition(SLP) before Hon ble Apex Court applications for refund would be considered after receipt of further orders or on outcome of the proposed Special Leave Petition that would be filed by State. As such respond .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itions are taken up for final disposal. 4. Sri.T.N.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners by reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that under sub-section(3) of section 10 of the Act, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of any tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him less the input tax deductable by him during the tax period and where the input tax deductable by a dealer exceeds the output tax payable by him, the e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

complied or adhered to by the first respondent petitioners have sought for the prayer for refund of excess input tax amount paid by the petitioners. 5. Per contra, Sri.T.K.Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State would contend that under section 47 of the Act it is the persons who have paid the input tax would be entitled and as such the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment would apply and petitioners would not be entitled for refund of input tax. 6. In reply Sri.T.N.Keshava Murthy, lea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quires to be noticed at the outset that question of unjust enrichment in the instant case does not arise at all inasmuch as language of sub-section(5) of section 10 is clear and unambiguous. It would clearly indicate that where the input tax deductable by a dealer exceeds the output tax payable by him the excess amount is required to be adjusted or refunded together with interest as the case may be. The language employed in sub-section (5) of section 10 is clear and unambiguous. While interpreti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the dicta laid down by Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s.M.K.Agro Tech (Private) Limited, Mandya District Vs State of Karnataka. In that view of the matter contention now raised would not be available for the respondent-State to either reject the prayer of petitioners for refund of excess input tax or keep the applications filed by the petitioners in abeyance on the said ground. 9. Infact the Division Bench has clearly held in M/s.M.K.Agro Tech (Private) Limited to the effect t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cake had applied solvent extraction process. He did not set up any industrial unit for the purpose of manufacturing de-oiled cake. The entire raw material named as sunflower cake purchased is for the manufacture of sunflower oil. But, in the process, after the entire sunflower oil is extracted, de-oiled cake remains. The said de-oiled cake also has a value. He cannot keep that de-oiled cake in his premises as it could occupy a large space and no purpose would be served by keeping the same. Mere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version