TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in United Breweries. Assessee was paying tax on hops pallets prior to the said decision. In Jayce Trading Corporation [ 2021 (3) TMI 956 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , the assessee therein had paid taxes for period between 03.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 prior to the date on which the Commissioner had clarified the issue on 07.07.2014. In the case on hand, the basis to impose tax is the decision in United Breweries which has been rendered on 15.09.2015. Therefore, imposition of tax prior to the decision in United Breweries is not sustainable. For the same reason, interest and penalty are also not sustainable. The aspect of fit for consumption has been considered by this Court in United Breweries. Therefore, this contention is untenable and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Order has erroneously confirmed the levy of penalty for F.Y. 2011-12 against the Petitioner as per the provisions of Section 7(3) of the KTEG Act? 2. Heard Shri. Prasad Paranjape, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. Jeevan Neeralgi learned AGA for the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, assessee- M/s. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., is a company [Registered under the Companies Act, 1956] engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer under various brands. It procures agricultural produce such as barley/malt, maize flakes, hops pellets which are used as raw material in the manufacture of beer. Pursuant to order of this Court dated September 14, 2015 in State of Karnataka Vs. United Breweries Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer] , FAA [First Appellate Authority] and KAT are unsustainable in law. 5. In support of his submission, Shri. Paranjape has placed reliance upon following authorities: State of Karnataka Vs. Jayce Trading Corporation [STRP No.1 of 2017 dated 2.02.2021]; State of Karnataka Vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd.[ CRP No. 44 of 2017 dated 25.09.2021]; 6. Opposing the petitions, Shri. Neeralgi, for the Revenue submitted that: issue whether Maize, Malt and Hop pellets could be classified as agricultural produce has been answered in the negative in United Breweries.; provisions of Section 7(2) and 7(3) of the KTEG Act has been rightly invoked by the Revenue since assessee has not paid Entry Tax as and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the K.T.E.G. Act? 12. This Court has answered the above question in the negative which means that the above goods are taxable. 13. Admittedly, the decision in United Breweries is rendered on September 14, 2015. Hence, Maize Flakes, Malted Barley, Malt conversion and Malt extract became taxable pursuant to the decision in United Breweries. Assessee was paying tax on hops pallets prior to the said decision. 14. Revenue has sought to impose tax, interest and penalty on Maize Flakes, Malted Barley, Malt conversion and Malt extract for the period prior to the decision in United Breweries i.e. September 14, 2015. The same is not sustainable and this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court in Jayce Trading Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
