Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

1. These sales tax revision petitions under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'), are directed against the judgment dated 21st June 2013 rendered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short *the Tribunal") in STA Nos.1192 to 1243/2010, pertaining to the period commencing from April 2005 to December 2009. By the judgment dated 21st June 2013, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the petitioner-M/s.Manipal University (for short ‘the University').

1.1. The appeals before the Tribunal were directed against the order dated 12-05-2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (appeals), Mangalore (for short 1the Appellate Authority') disposing of the Appeal Nos.KVAT/AP/1084 to 1140/09-10 whereby the Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 12-03-2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Enf-1), Mangalore (for short the Assessing Authority') under Section 39 of the Act by which the balance tax payable had been determined. By this order (12-03-2010), the Assessing Authority also levied interest under Section 36 and penalty under Section 72(2) of the Act.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to these revision petitions are that, the Assessing Authority on 13.01.2010 visited the petitioner's premises and collected sales particulars of prospectus and application forms for the period between April 2005 to December 2009 (for short ‘the relevant period’) and also collected other particulars with which we are not concerned in the present petitions. After verification, the Assessing Authority found that the University had not declared the sales of application forms and prospectus and offered tax in the form VAT 100 filed by them. In view thereof, a pre- assessment notice under Section 39(1) of the Act was issued and after getting reply from the University, an order under Section 36(1) of the Act was passed on 12-03-2010. The Assessing Authority also levied penalty under Section 72(2) of the Act vide order dated 25-03-2010. As stated earlier, the order of the Assessing Authority was thereafter confirmed by the Appellate Authority and so also by the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner is a registered dealer, both under the provisions of the Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CS7 Actr). The certificate issued under the Act was in Form VAT 7 under Rule 9(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). The TIN Number issued to the petitioner was 29040451525, both for the Act and CST Act. In the Form VAT 7, which is a prescribed form of the certificate, it is clearly stated that "M/s. Manipal University has been registered as a dealer under Section 22 of the Act and its principal place of business is Manipal E.D.U., Madhava Nagar, Manipal-576104". The certificate further mentions the additional places of business.

4. It is against this backdrop, the following questions of law fall for our consideration:

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in taw, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view taken by the authorities below that the University is engaged in the activity of the sale of prospectus and application forms so as to attract levy of VAT under the provisions of the Act. ?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not treating the activity of sale of prospectus and application forms, being an activity failing under Entry 11 of the First Schedule and/or holding that it falls under Entry 71 of the Third Schedule of the Act?

4.1. At this stage, we make it clear that though the petitioners formulated four questions of law in the memorandum of revision petitions, we have with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties reformulated the questions of law as above and then, by consent proceeded to hear them on merits at the stage of admission.

5. We have heard learned co