Allowed

M/S Coromandal Sugars Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023STRP/353/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order disallowing sales tax exemption for sugar by-products. Quashing a concurrent writ petition that granted the exemption, the court allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order, and answered questions of law in favor of the assessee.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; questions of law answered in favor of assessee; order dated October 27, 2016 in STA No. 45/2004 set aside.

M/S Coromandal Sugars Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶8

STRP NO. 353 OF 2017

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

M/s. COROMANDAL SUGARS LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S I.C.L.SUGARS LTD) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS) SRI. V.K. VENKATARAMAN MIDFORD GARDEN M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SHRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M.N. SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA 1^ST MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009. ...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SHRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA)

¶15

STRP No.353 OF 2017

¶16

¶17

THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT, 1957 R/W SECTION 8A OF THE KAT ACT, 1956, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2016 PASSED IN STA NOS.45/2004, 46/2004, 2492/2004 AND 358/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED UNDER SEC.22(1) OF THE KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT 1957, THE ASSESSMENT PERIODS 19992000 TO 2003-04 IN PURSUANCE TO THE DEMAND NOTICE IN T.NO. 202-17/18, TIN/KST:NO.00512588/00562550, DATED 18.07.2017 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (A&R)-3.7, DVO-3, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU UNDER KST ACT.

¶18

THIS STRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.11.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J. , PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Revision Petition by the assessee, directed against the order dated October 27, 2016 in STA No. 45/2004 and connected cases passed by the KAT¹ ,

¶21

has been admitted to consider following questions of law:

¶22

(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeals disallowing the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of tax on molasses, bagasse and filter mud under 1996-2001 industrial policy on the ground that it would amount to dual benefit because the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of deferral of purchase tax on sugarcane?

¶23

1 Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

¶24

STRP No.353 OF 2017

¶25

¶26

(b) Whether on facts and circumstances of the in the Appellate Authority and Assessing Authority are right in disallowing the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of tax on the sale of by-products namely, molasses, bagasse and filter mud?

¶27

(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in disallowing the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of sales tax on molasses, bagasse etc., under 1996-2001 industrial policy, when the petitioner's application for granting of FAVC was pending consideration before the SLCC?

¶28

Heard Shri. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior

¶29

Advocate for the assessee and Shri. R. Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

¶30

The assessee, M/s. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., has filed W.P. No. 15174-15178/2018 with a prayer inter alia to quash the State Government’s decision to deny Sales Tax exemption on the by-products. We have simultaneously heard the said writ petition along with this revision petition

¶31

and allowed the same holding that petitioner shall be

¶32

STRP No.353 OF 2017

¶33

¶34

entitled for e xemption from payment of sales tax on by-products namely molasses, bagasse and filter mud.

¶35

The AO² has disallowed the exemption on the

¶36

premise that it would amount to dual benefit to the petitioner. The State Government have also denied the benefit which has been considered in the aforementioned writ petition. Thus, the subject matter is common in the said writ petition and this revision petition. In our considered opinion, the reasons recorded while allowing the writ petition also answer the contentions urged by the assessee and the Revenue in this revision petition and this revision petition merits consideration. Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(a) Revision petition is allowed .

¶39

(b) The questions of law are answered in favour

¶40

of the assessee and against the Revenue.

¶41

2 Assessing Officer

STRP No.353 OF 2017

45/2004 and connected cases passed by KAT, Bangalore confirming the orders passed by AO and FAA³ is set aside.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

SPS

3 First Appellate Authority

M/S Coromandal Sugars Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Coromandal Sugars Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs M/S Spice Retail.Ltd.

The State of Karnataka Vs M/S Intex Technologies India Ltd.

The State of Karnataka Vs M/S Universal Telecommunications

M/S Coromandel Sugars Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary

Patel Industrial Corporation Vs Sri C Purushotham

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.