IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3957 OF 2016 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT) 3.3, DVO-3, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUS STAND, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
SRI ANANTHA PADMANABHA BHAT SON OF LATE S. RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S SLV CORNER, NO.79/4, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.54356-54357 OF 2015 AND WRIT PETITION NOS.57006-57027 OF 2015 (T-RES) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 3-6-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos.54356- 54357 of 2015 and Writ Petition Nos.57006-57027 of 2015 allowing the writ petitions with costs, the State has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge misread the provisions of law and set aside the demand notice issued to the writ petitioner. That the writ petitioner is liable to be satisfy the demand notice.
3. The respondent is served and unrepresented.
4. On hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The petitioner runs a vegetarian restaurant. He has purchased Vitrified Tiles worth Rs.1,69,910/- and Rs.23,375/- for his hotel during the tax period. The Investigating authorities having observed that the petitioner - assessee has effected the said purchase, issued the impugned reassessment notice demanding a sum of Rs.5,04,264/- for the year 2010- 2011. Questioning the same, the instant writ petitions were filed. The learned Single Judge came to the view that in terms of Rule 135 of the Karnataka Value Added Rules,2005, the same would indicate only about goods-in- stock which refers to regular day to-day business for which he is registered by the Department. That the Rules do not intend to cover the goods purchased for other purposes. Admittedly, the assessee is running a restaurant. The Vitrified Tiles are purchased by him are for the purpose of flooring of the restaurant. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found fault with the notice being issued.
5. On considering the contentions and the reasons assigned, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. The order is in accordance with law and on facts. When admittedly, the writ petitioner is running a restaurant, the goods purchased by him namely, the Vitrified Tiles are for the purpose of flooring of the hotel. Therefore, consequently the said tiles form part of the immoveable property. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is a dealer so far as Vitrified Tiles are concerned. Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
However, the costs as imposed by the learned Single Judge in our considered is incorrect. Hence, the order on costs is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-