Disposed

M/S Popular Concrete (P) Ltd., v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023WP/109334/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court heard a writ petition challenging input tax on cement and annulated orders under KVAT Act. Petitioner withdrew the constitutional challenge notification validity. Court granted liberty to appeal relevant orders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file appeal before the Appropriate Appellate Authority under Section 62 of KVAT Act 2003; time spent in this petition excluded.

M/S Popular Concrete (P) Ltd., Vs the Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14132 WP No. 109334 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS. 109334-346 OF 2015 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S POPULAR CONCRETE (P) LTD., R/BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI GIRISH,

¶9

AGE: 48 YEARS, CCB 110, ISHAN OPUS CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI BELAGAVI-590006.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally
signed by
V N
V N BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2023.12.06
11:20:38
+0530

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) -I, 3RD FLOOR, SUMOULY SOUDHA, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, IST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14132 WP No. 109334 of 2015

¶19

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.SHEELA MIRJI & SRI.M.B.KANAVI, ADVS. FOR R1; SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 TO R5)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.03.2006 (ANNEXURE-F) TO THE EXTENT OF SPECIFYING THAT INPUT TAX SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN CALCULATING THE NET TAX PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF "CEMENT USED AS INPUT IN THE BUSINESS RELATING TO PIPES AND FITTINGS" IS ARBITRARY BESIDES BEING DISCRIMINATORY AND UNREASONABLE AND IS THEREFORE VIOLATIVE FO ARTICLES 14 AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This case was disposed of vide order dated

¶26

03.11.2023.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents had

¶28

submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

¶29

case of M/s. J. K. Cement Works Vs. The State of

¶30

Karnataka, Sales Tax Revision Petition

¶31

No.100001/2014 and connected matters and also in

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14132 WP No. 109334 of 2015

¶33

the case of M/s. Maya Appliances (P) Ltd now known as Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, Civil Appeal Nos.357-367/2018.

¶34

The submission was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

The matter was listed for being spoken to as requested, as the order dated 03.11.2023 was not signed.

¶36

Both the counsel jointly submitted that in the aforementioned cases, the issue involved in this case is not decided. This being the position, the matter was ordered to be listed today for further hearing.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶38

that the petitioner would not press the prayer wherein he has questioned the validity of the notification.

¶39

Submission is placed on record.

¶40

If validity of the notification at Annexure-A is

¶41

not called in question, then what remains is Annexures-B

¶42

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14132 WP No. 109334 of 2015

¶43

and B1, which are the orders passed under Section 38(5) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act 2003’ for short).

¶44

In that event, the aforementioned orders can be questioned by filing appeal before the appropriate appellate authority under Section 62 of the KVAT Act 2003. Hence liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Forum if adviced under law.

¶45

The time spent in prosecuting this petition to be excluded while computing limitation in case appeal is filed.

¶46

Registry to return copies of the impugned order

¶47

after retaining xerox copies.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

kgk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

M/S Popular Concrete (P) Ltd., v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Popular Concrete (P) Ltd., v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Veerabhadrappa v Pattanshetti Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. B. Basavanappa S/O Onkarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Jai Kisan Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangh Niyamith Vs the State of Karnataka

Indusind Media and Communication Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S K.M. Parvathamma Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

M/S.Jituri Cement Products Vs Commercial Tax Officer (ENF-3)