1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.9511/2021 (T-RES)

Between:

M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,

Jalahalli Post, Jalahalli,

Bengaluru - 560 013

Represented by its Authorised Signatory

Mr. Murali V.,

Aged 58 years,

Residing at No.15.3.5,

Shriram Sameeksha Apartments,

Naidu Layout,

Bangalore - 560 013.

& Petitioner

(By Sri G. Shivadass, Senior Counsel a/w

Sri Prashanth S. Shivadass, Advocate)

And:

1.

The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

(Audit) - 6.3, DGSTO - 6,

3rd Floor, KIADB Building,

Peenya 2nd Stage,

Bangalore - 560 058.

2.

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

(Appeals-6),

2nd Floor, TTMC 'B' Block,

BMTC Building, Shanthinagar,

Bangalore - 560 009.

& Respondents

(By Sri K. Hema Kumar, AGA)

2

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders dated

20.04.2021 vide Annexure-A passed by the R1 and etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court,

made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has called in question the validity of the

order dated 20.04.2021 at Annexure-A and has also sought

for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of 30% of tax as

required under Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Value

Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') for the purpose of

consideration of interim relief.

2.

Petitioner submits that insofar as the slab of tax

levied with respect to certain items, the assessment

proceedings for the year April, 2014 to March, 2015, have

been culminated as per the order in STA Nos. 749 &

750/2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It is

pointed out that the Tribunal by a detailed order while

allowing the appeal in part had directed rate of tax to be

applied to certain items at 5.5.% by treating them as IT

products. It is further stated that in respect of assessment

3

proceedings for the year April, 2016 to March, 2017 with

respect to the very same products, the Tribunal had

directed levy of tax @ 5.5% by treating the products as IT

products. The Assessing Officer disregarding the order of

the Tribunal for the previous assessment year has passed

an order on 20.04.2021 taking a stand divergent to the

stand to the order of the Tribunal in STA Nos. 749 &

750/2016. It is further submitted that as against the order

of the Assessing Officer under Section 9(2) of the Central

Sales Act, 1956 an appeal has been filed by the petitioner,

copy of which is produced at Annexure-K.

3.

Learned

Senior

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner submits that for the purpose of consideration of

interim relief before the appellate authority in terms of

Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Act, the petitioner is required to

make payment of 30%, upon which the appellate authority

may in its discretion consider stay of payment of 70% of

tax. It is contended that this Court in exercise of writ

jurisdiction ought to interfere in the matter and order for

4

waiving of deposit of 30% in order to be eligible for

consideration of interim prayer in light of the peculiar facts

of the case including that for the period of assessment

between April, 2014 to March, 2015 the petitioner has the

benefit of the order of the Tribunal in STA Nos. 749 &

750/2016.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the State would

contend that the order in STA Nos. 749 & 750/2016 is the

subject matter of revision proceedings in S.T.R.P. No.

102/2018 which is still pending consideration.

5.

Heard both sides.

6.

It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer in

the proceedings in the order at Annexure-A has rejected the

contention of the petitioner regarding levy of tax at 5.5% by

treating the products as IT products while the order in STA

Nos. 749 & 750/2016 with respect to the same assessee

and same products relating to the assessment per