AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the petitions are directed against a common order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015, whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has remanded the matter to the concerned Jurisdictional Local VAT Officer to act in accordance with Law.
We have heard Mr. Ashok A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.K.Veda Murthy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that these matters are already covered by the decision of this Court in favour of the petitioner, in STRP Nos.56/2014 and 276-324/2014, dated 05.11.2015 and allied matters. As per the petitioners in the said decision, it has been held that the refund was available to the petitioner. Wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case also, such situations are similar and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal may be interfered with.
Whereas the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that in the present case, the Tribunal has considered the aspect of ''unjust enrichment'' and the applicability of Section-47 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 (for short ''KVAT Act''), which has not been considered in the earlier decision of this Court and therefore this Court may not interfere just on the ground that there is already an earlier decision of this Court dated 05.11.2015.
We do find considerable force in the arguments of the learned Government Advocate that in the above said decision of this Court dated 05.11.2015 in case of M/s. Centum Electronics Limited vs. State of Karnataka, in STRP Nos.56/2014 and 276-324/2014 and allied matters, the attention of the Court was not drawn to the statutory provisions of Section-47 of the KVAT Act and therefore it cannot be said that the issues are already covered by the decisions of this Court.
However, on the aspect of applicability of Section-47 of the KVAT Act and its consequential effect, the matter has been remanded by the Tribunal to the Jurisdictional Local VAT Officer, at that stage the parties will have to be heard in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that since the matter is at large to be examined by the Jurisdictional Local Vat Officer in accordance with law, the petition may be permitted to be withdrawn.
Petitions can be permitted as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that the all the rights and contentions of both parties including the question of applicability of Section-47 of KVAT Act shall remain open to be considered by the Jurisdictional Local VAT Officer. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.