TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional Government Advocate) Respondent: (By Sri T. Suryanarayan Sri N. B. Diwanji, Advocate) Nagarathna J., ORDER State has preferred this revision petition assailing Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2007 in STA No.306/2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the Tribunal , for the sake of brevity) 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent is a private limited company engaged in the execution of works contract and is a registered dealer and an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act ). That the respondent had executed certain civil works contract and dispute arose in respect of the Assessment Year 2003-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: - (a) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the appeal by holding that the Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction wherein, the Revisional Authority has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Assessing Authority cannot be sustained in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case? (b) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is a sale of Iron and Steel in the form of Iron and Steel even though, the said Iron and Steel was used in conglomeration with other goods?. (c) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, there is a contract for the sale of civil work and there was no predominant intention to sell Iron an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larsen Toubro Limited, Bangalore vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in [2006 (61) Kar. L.J. 452 (HC) (DB)] and B.V. Subba Reddy vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Bijapur and Another reported in [(2008) 11 VST 715 (Karn.)] and therefore, this Court directed that this revision petition could be taken for adjudication, subsequent to the disposal of the aforesaid matters before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent-assessee now brings to our notice that the controversy is no longer res-integra and has been given a quietus by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. B. Narasamma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and Another reported in [(2016) 96 VST 357 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Bangalore reported in [2014 (80) Kar. L.J. 152 (HC) (DB)] and also decision of this Court in case of Larsen Toubro Limited, Bangalore, supra. Learned counsel would also submit that the Hon ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of this Court in the case of Anant Engineering Works and Reddy Structures Private Limited, Bangalore, supra and has set aside the judgment of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited, Bangalore, in Smt.B.Narasamma, referred to above. He would therefore, submit that the State s revision petition has to be dismissed having regard to the recent dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State very fairly submits that the submissions made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
