m/s rajashekar k patil vs the additional commissioner of commercial taxes

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
M/S RAJASHEKAR K PATIL, HOUSE NO.34, PADMANJALI NILAYA, S.B.H COLONY, OPP K P T C L, BIDAR 585 401.
REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR, MR. RAJASHEKAR K PATIL.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA T. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE 1, KALIDASA ROAD, VANIJAYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 047.
Digitally …RESPONDENT signed by (BY SRI.ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT.,AGA)
CHETAN B C Location:
THIS STA FILED UNDER SECTION 66(1) OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF VALUE ADDED TAX ACT 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED KARNATAKA
22.03.2024 PASSED IN CAS NO. 355440601 ADSMR ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU. SETTING ASIDE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 16.03.2021 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ZONE-1, KALABURAGI, FOR THE TAX PERIOD FOR APRIL 2016 TO MARCH 2017.
THIS STA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Petitioner Advocates:SATHYANARAYANA T. R. ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

This appeal by the assessee is filed under Section

66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for calling in question the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the respondent in CAS ORDER No.355440601 AD SMR and proceedings dated 16.3.2021 subsequently drawn by ACCT (Audit)-2, Kalaburagi.

2. The appeal is structured on the following ‘Substantial Questions of Law’, that are haphazardly framed, to say the least:

“Question No.1: Whether Validity of consideration of total turnovers as per erroneous monthly returns filed in form VAT- 100 in the absence of the books of account ACCT-Kalaburgi?

Question No.2: Validity of disallowance of deduction claimed towards labour & like charges in the absence of books of account &

allowing the standard deduction of 30% as per rule 3(2)(m) of the KVAT rules 2005 by the respondent and not allowing exemption towards deemed VAT collected amount & gross profit earned towards labour & like charge expenses incurred by the appellant ?

Question No.3: Validity of dis-allowance of the deduction claimed towards input tax credit for non-submission of the relevant documentary evidence and the levy of VAT @ 14.5% along with the consequential interest and penalty on the balance liability determined by the ACCT-Kalaburgi?

Question No.4: Validity of demanding back the refund claimed amount along with the consequential interest and penalty based on invalid form VAT-156 filed by the then tax consultant for the tax period June - 17 by the ACCT- LGSTO-540-Bidar?”

3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned AGA appearing for the Revenue, we find that the subject matter of this appeal is substantially similar to the one in STA No.1/2024 between the same parties dismissed by us today by a considered order. Learned AGA is right in telling us that this appeal on the principle of parity has to meet the same fate, in the absence of demonstrable difference from the other appeal.

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document