AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has come up for orders on the application Misc. Cvl. 8676 of 2009 for condonation of delay of 134 days in filing this appeal.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Sri H. M. Manjunath, learned Additional Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondents on the application for condonation of delay.
Accepting the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and Misc. Cvl. 8676 of 2009 is allowed.
With the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the .matter is taken up for disposal.
This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed in exercise of his revisional powers u/s 24 of the Kamataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act").
The relevant accounting period is 1997-98 and in respect of the turnover of the dealer representing the value of cotton purchased by the dealer who is running a spinning mills.
It was claimed that part of the turnover was exempt from levy of purchase tax pursuant to the order issued by the Government of Karnataka following the Textile Policy of the Government to grant exemption from levy of purchase tax in respect of such purchases of cotton from the growers.
While the assessing authority had declined such relief, the dealer succeeded in appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
It is this order extending the exemption benefit in favour of the dealer which has come to be reversed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising his revisional powers is questioned in the appeal.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Rabinathan, learned Counsel, while submits that the dealer though contends that the view taken by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is wrong and the dealer was definitely entitled for the benefit of exemption, this Court having already opined on the identical question in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sree Jayalakshmi Spinners by order dated March 16, 2004 passed in S.T.R.P. No. 66 of 1999 (copy at annexure F) and that matter having been pursued further by that dealer before the Supreme Court by seeking special leave, etc., the present appellant-dealer also would like to pursue the matter and therefore would, nevertheless, press this appeal for orders on the merits, etc.
Sri H. M. Manjunath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the legal position is as indicated in Sree Jayalakshmi Spinners'' case (S.T.R.P. No. 66 of 1999 decided on March 16, 2004) decided by this Court.
In the light of the view already taken by this Court on this aspect holding that a mere Government order cannot be a substitute for exemption provision under the provisions of the Act and following the said decision we have to dismiss the appeal.
In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.