High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 KAR CK 0062

M/S CLUB HOUSE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vineet Kothari
CASE NUMBER
65169-180 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

The petitioner-Club House, Mysore, has challenged before this Court the impugned reassessment order passed by the Respondent-

Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 39 of the KVAT Act, 2003.

2.

The Respondent-Authority has imposed VAT on the ''commission'' received by the Petitioner-Club for conducting off-course betting of Horse

races conducted by other Race Clubs in India for relaying this off-course betting, it pays certain percentage of net income of the commission which

termed as ''royalty'' and in the similar manner, the other Race Clubs all over India also conduct off-course betting in respect of races conducted by

Mysore Race Club, the present petitioner-assessee had received Royalty from other Clubs.

3.

The only contention raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee is that it is the income of the assessee-club, which

cannot be taxed under VAT law under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003, whereas the rival contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Revenue Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy is that even ''intangible'' goods in the form of rights to relay the Horse race conducted all over the country by the

petitioner-Club is a taxable event and taxable goods which includes intangible goods for the 42nd Constitutional Amendment and therefore, the

impugned order passed by the Assessing Authority is justified.

4.

In view of the impugned reassessment order being appealable under the provisions of Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003, this Court is not

inclined to entertain this writ petition in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is held to be

not maintainable.

5.

The petitioner-assessee has the effective alternative remedy to prefer the appeal against the said impugned reassessment order.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If the appeal under Section 62 of the Act is filed within a period of 30 days from today, the question

of bar of limitation will not be raised and subject to other conditions being fulfilled, the appeal may be heard on merits. No costs.