Remanded

Ms Sri Lakshminarayana Swamy Stone v. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2016WP/228/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these preliminary writ petitions, the High Court set aside a VAT reassessment order that levied tax at 14.5% on M-sand. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file objections arguing that M-sand falls under the 5.5% rate for 'sand and grits', directing the respondent to consider the objections afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside with liberty to the petitioner to file objections on the company's eligibility for the 5.5% tax rate, to be considered by the respondent.

Ms Sri Lakshminarayana Swamy Stone Vs the Deputy… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.228-239 OF 2016 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. Sri. Lakshminarayana Swamy Stone Crushing M Sand, TIN:29041172041, Survey No.29, Hulluvenahalli, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru 562 130. (by its Proprietor M.R.Lakshmanappa, 66 years).

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri T.N.Keshava Murthy, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) – 6.3, DVO 6, 3^rd Floor, KIADB Building, Peenya 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru 560 058.

¶13

¶14

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gandhinagar,

¶15

Bengaluru 560 009.

¶16

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Shri S.V. Girikumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents)

¶19

¶20

These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned reassessment order dated 16.12.2015 as in Annexure-A passed by the first respondent levying tax on the turnover of M-sand @ 14.5% as against 5.5.% prescribed under Sl.No.83 of the third schedule to the act, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and etc;

¶21

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the Assessing

¶24

Officer levying VAT tax on the turnover of M-sand at 14.5% as against 5.5% prescribed under the schedule.

¶25

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would insist that M-sand is nothing but sand and it is how it is understood in the trade. Since the officer concerned is firm in his view that M- sand is not covered under the entry, “sand and grits”, the petitioner ought to file his objections emphasizing and justifying the contention that M-sand is nothing but sand.

¶27

This opportunity not having been availed of, the present petitions having been filed on a demand having been made, the petitioner shall file his objections, which the respondent No.1 shall consider, in accordance with law and thereafter take a view.

¶28

The order impugned is set aside, with liberty to the first respondent to pass orders afresh, after hearing the petitioner on his objections that are to be filed. Four weeks’ time is granted for the exercise.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Ms Sri Lakshminarayana Swamy Stone v. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sri Lakshminarayana Swamy Stone v. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. G. Yerri Swamy Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax

Shri Raghupathi Vs Smt Kanakamma

Sri. K. Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Preusse India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Smt Devika S D Vs the Deputy Commissioner