TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI AND THE DR. H.B. PRABHAKARA JJ. Petitioner (By Sri. C.S. Patil, Govt. Adv.) Respondent-Served but none appears. O R D E R DR. VINEET KOTHARI 1. Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner Revenue submits that the controversy raised in the present revision petition filed by the Revenue under Section 65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, stands covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Narasamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial T axes, Karnataka and Another, 2016 (86) Kar. L.J.229(SC), to the effect that the Iron and Steel purchased by the respondent assessee and used in the execution of the civil works contracts of the construction of the buildings, remains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it continues to be the declared goods. By virtue of Section15 of the CST Act, the State has an authority to impose tax. It cannot impose tax more than the tax prescribed in Section 15 of the Act. 17. Hence, iron and steel transferred in the same form is to be taxed at 4% only. However, in absence of details of transfer of Iron and Steel, in the same form, the case needs to be remitted back to the AA to conclude assessment afresh on merits and as per law, and in the light of law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, mentioned supra at para-15, after providing an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Hence, on the facts and circumstances and law, we answer to point No.2 in the negative. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 and thus dismissed the revision petition stating that no question of law arose. Ordinarily, we would have set aside the judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court to determine the matter on merits, but at this point of time this would not serve any purpose. Instead, it is enough to set aside both the judgments impugned by the assessees, dated 01.09.2006 and 12.08.2004, in light of the law laid down in Builders Association and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley (supra), and declare that the declared goods in question can only be taxed at the rate of 4%. 5. Since the controversy now stands covered by the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court and is no longer res integra, we are satisfied that no question of law arises i n the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
