9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Appeals) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in STA Nos.1916 to 1954 of 2014 (Annexure-A), wherein the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 in Appeal No.KET-AP:20 to 58 of 2009-10 (Annexure-B) and the assessment and re-assessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru, in No.JCCT.ENF.SZ.DCCT-1/2009-10 under Sections 6-A(3) & 6- B(1) of the Act, for the period commencing from April 2006 to June 2009 (Annexures-C1 to C39), has been confirmed. 2. Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal. 3. Brief facts of the case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and re-assessment orders passed against the petitioner was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed 39 separate appeals before the Tribunal under Section 8-E(1) of the Act, and by order dated 10.03.2016, the said appeals were dismissed confirming the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition challenging the common order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal in STA.Nos.1916 to 1954/2014. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has produced all the necessary documents before the assessing authority to show that separate entertainment tax was not being collected and inspite of the same, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant documents, the authorities below were constrained to pass the impugned orders which does not call for any interference, and accordingly prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel on both sides and also the material available on record. 8. The questions of law raised by the petitioner-assessee in this revision petition reads as under: a) Whether entertainment tax under the provisions of 4-C of KET Act, 1958, is leviable on the consideration towards the services excluding the service tax component or on both? b) Whether entertainment tax can be levied on the transaction of service which is so characterized under the Finance Act, 1994? c) Whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charging Section 4-G of the Act uses the expression 'on the amounts received or receivable' is liable for entertainment tax at 6%, and therefore, the assessing authority is correct in levying entertainment tax on service tax component, and the appellate authority is correct in confirming the same. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if an opportunity is given, he would produce all the relevant invoices raised against the subscribers to show that service tax was separately collected in addition to the entertainment tax. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Federation of Tax Practitioners' case (supra), has held that service tax is levied on the service and not on the service provider. It has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
