TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not sold by him in the regular course of business but they were used for the flooring of the restaurant where it was held that When so fixed in the floor, the Vitrified Tiles of-course became the part of the immovable property, and it is beyond the common sense and basic commercial prudence to even comprehend that the Vitrified Tiles fixed on the floor of the restaurant could be treated by an assessing authority as the 'goods in stock' dealt with by the assessee or sold in the course of regular course of business. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent is engaged in sale of bakery items. The goods purchased by the respondent are for preparing the bakery items. Hence, they cannot be considered as 'goods held in sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at the rate of 4% on the sale of food items. 4. Based on the scrutiny of e-sugam Forms and examination of books of accounts, the Assessing Authority (Commercial Tax Officer (Audit 2.2), Koramangala, Bengaluru) passed re-assessment orders (dated 24.02.2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, order dated 27.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and order dated 27.02.2015 for the Assessment year 2013-14, upto July 2013), denying the benefit of payment of tax under Composition Scheme on the ground that respondent had made interstate purchases. 5. Feeling aggrieved, respondent challenged the re-assessment orders before the First Appellate Authority3 and the said Authority, vide order dated 22.12.2014 in VAT:AP No 564-575/13-14, order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... composition to the respondent. He further submitted that though the First Appellate Authority upheld the order of reassessment in so far as it related to denial of benefits of payment of tax by way of composition, it has erred in granting the benefit of input tax credit. The KAT has allowed the appeals on an erroneous assumption that the goods in question are not 'goods in stock'. In view of the admitted facts, the benefit of composition is not available to the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the KAT is unsustainable in law. 7. Shri. M. Thirumalesh, learned Advocate for the assessee submitted that assessee is not engaged in manufacture and sale of bakery products. It has purchased machinery and its parts for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, and it is beyond the common sense and basic commercial prudence to even comprehend that the Vitrified Tiles fixed on the floor of the restaurant could be treated by an assessing authority as the 'goods in stock' dealt with by the assessee or sold in the course of regular course of business. The assessing authorities trained and well acquainted with the commercial terms, cannot be allowed to take such perverse views. 11. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent is engaged in sale of bakery items. The goods purchased by the respondent are for preparing the bakery items. Hence, they cannot be considered as 'goods held in stock'. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in Anantha Padmanabha Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
