Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Bhima Riddhi Digital Services Versus The State of Karnataka & Others

2016 (6) TMI 945 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Challenge to the show cause notice demanding VAT on sale of STB (set-top boxes) - KVAT - providing an opportunity of hearing - It was contended that there was no violation of the provisions contained in the Act, particularly Section 74 and that petitioner never sold any of the set-top boxes as alleged and therefore they were not liable to pay any tax. - Held that:- No demand notice nor any coercive steps has been initiated pursuant to the notice issued. The endorsement issued makes it clear that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a show-cause notice. - Decided partly in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 102605/2016 (T-RES) - Dated:- 23-3-2016 - MR. B.S.PATIL J. For the Appellant: Sriyuts K.P.Kumar, Senior Counsel for T.Suryanarayana, Vikram Huilgol & H.R.Kambiyavar, Advocates) For the Respondents (By Sri M.Kumar, Addl. Government Advocate) ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents. 2. Matter lies in a short compass. Therefore, it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tates that petitioner was found liable to discharge tax of ₹ 6,78,21,534/-. Therefore, petitioner has been called upon to discharge the said liability immediately within seven days failing which action, as deemed fit, would be initiated against petitioner without further notice. 4. This notice was replied by the petitioner on 8th March 2016 contending inter alia that there was no violation of the provisions contained in the Act, particularly Section 74 and that petitioner never sold any of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was made clear that petitioner would be given ten days time to reply to the notice dated 03.03.2016 and to produce necessary documents to substantiate their stand but in the meanwhile, petitioner had to discharge tax liability immediately as per the notice-Annexure-B. It is in this background present writ petition has been filed. 6. I have heard learned senior counsel for petitioner who has taken me through the provisions in Sections 39 and 74 of the Act. It is his main contention that Deputy Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al Government Advocate submits that effect of the impugned notice and the endorsement is to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to have their say in the matter with regard to the sale of set-top boxes and the consequent liability; as the petitioner had sought for opportunity, the same has been given as per the endorsement - Annexure-D and therefore, at this stage, petitioner cannot be allowed to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Having heard learned counsel for b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version