2008 Supreme(Kar) 437

2008 (4) KLO 346 AC 306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Writ Petition No. 9464 of 2008 (T-RES)
M/s. Southern Motors - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Karnataka and Another - Respondents
Decided on 16-7-2008

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Headnote:KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 - Section 30 & Karnataka Value Added Rules, 2005, Rules 31(1) & Rule 3(2)(C): [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Whether Rule 3(2)(C) is either discriminatory or ultra vires of Section 30 ? Held, The Rule only stipulates the disclosure of some information and does not either create a new liability or an additional liability or in any way come in the way of assessees claiming the benefit under Section 30 of the Act. This is a procedure for claiming the benefit. Moreover, the benefit envisaged under Section 30 of the Act is only to make a correction within six months from the date of the sale transaction on finding the tax charged/collected is more or less. The value of the sale transaction is as fixed at the time of sale and even in terms of the charging section. There is no scope for fixing the price later. If under the rule, the benefit is made available subject to the condition that the discounted price should have been so indicated in the invoice value of the goods, the condition is neither ultra vires Section 30 of the Act nor is discriminatory. It is not a fit case to interfere under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.