TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le under law - petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 49399 OF 2014 (T-RES) & WRIT PETITION NOS. 52259-52401 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - MR. HULUVADI G. RAMESH J. PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI SURYANARAYANA T., ADV.) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.V. GIRIKUMAR, A.G.A.) O R D E R Petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing respondent No.1 to forthwith issue notifications superseding the Government order dated 7-12-2011 exempting the whole of the tax payable by petitioners No.1 to 3 and their sub-contractors executing works in the project, on sale of goods made by them in the execution of the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (for short the BMICP ). Consequently, issue writ of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequent demand notices at Annexures AP, AQ, AR , AS, AT AV. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, framework agreement was entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.1 for implementation of the BMICP on a Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) model which was subsequently modified by a supplementary agreement dated 31-3-2000. In order to give effect to the above policy, three notifications have been issued by respondent No.1 providing for exemption under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, (for short the KST Act ) as well as the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 19 79, (for short the KTEG Act ) at Annexures D1 to D3 on 1-8-1998. The said certificate was valid for a period of three years, i.e. from 18-1- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued under the KVAT Act till the project is completed in furtherance of the earlier certificate issued under the KST Act. Further, petitioners are also seeking for quashing of the assessment orders made for period thereafter from 2005 and for not having issued the exemption certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 683 in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER v. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANISATION AND OTHERS. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that so far as the maintenance is concerned, policy decision would be taken by the Government. However, assessment period is made exempted by the Government and the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
