1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.56388/2017 & 56464/2017 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. KARTHIK ROOFINGS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. S. LEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.76 BYRAVESHWARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ENTRANCE ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PEENYA II STAGE BENGALURU-560091.
... PETITIONER (BY Mr. MANJUNATH B.K. ADV., FOR Mr. SHANKARE GOWDA M.N. ADV.,) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHINAGARA BENGALURU-560 009.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-6.3 DGSTO-6, 3RD FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING PEENYA II STAGE, BENGALURU-560058.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT & RECOVERY) DVO-6, NO.488, KIADB BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, 4TH PHASE PEENYA II STAGE, BENGALURU-560058.
.. RESPONDENTS (BY Mr. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CLARIFICATION PASSED BY THE R-1 IN COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KARNATAKA ON CLR. CR.84/13-14 DTD 01.03.2017 VIDE ANNX-A. SET ASIDE THE NOTICE DTD 17.11.2017 ISSUED U/S 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, FOR THE PERIOD 2014-15 VIDE ANNX-B PASSED BY R-3 AND THE REVISED NOTICE DTD 29.11.2017 ISSUED U/S 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-C.
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Manjunath B.K. Adv. for Petitioner Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA for Respondents 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Notice dated 17.11.2017 issued to him under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and re-assessment for the year 2014-15 under the provisions of the said Act.
2. The petitioner deals with the “Corrugated Pre- painted Galvanized Roofing Metal Sheets”. The order passed by the 1st Respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 59(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003 on the application of one M/s. SLN Roofing & Construction, the Commissioner held that “ Pre- painted Galvanized Steel Metal Sheets” are taxable at the residuary rate of 14.5% under Section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the KVAT Act, 2003.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.B.K.Manjunath however submits that the commodity dealt with and sold by the present petitioner falls under the category of ‘Declared goods’ under Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
4. The relevant clauses (iv) and (vi) of Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956 are quoted below for ready reference:-
“14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce.-
(iv) steel bars (rounds, rods, squares, flat, octagons and hexagons, plain and ribbed or twisted, in coil form as well as straight lengths;
(vi) sheets, hoops, strips and skelp, both black and galvanized, hot and cold rolled-plain and corrugated, in all qualities, in straight lengths and in coil form, as rolled and in riveted condition”.
5. From a bare perusal of the order passed by the Respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 59(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003, it is clear that the said Commissioner has not considered the effect of Section 14(vi) of the CST Act, 1956 at all and therefore, whether the commodity dealt with by the petitioner would fall under clause (vi) or not, was not an issue before the Respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
6. However, if the said order passed by the Respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is the cause for issuing reassessment notice against the petitioner in the present case, it is open to the petitioner to seek requisite clarification from the Respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes himself with regard to the effect of clause (vi) of Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956 in the first instance. It is equally open to the petitioner to contend before the Assessing Authority in pursuance of the reassessment notice issued to him that the commodity in question would fall under Section 14(vi) of the CST Act, 1956 and not under Section 14(iv) of the CST Act, 1956 and it is for the Assessing Authority to decide such contention in accordance with law.
7. Since all these contentions and aforesaid remedies are still available to the petitioner, it is considered premature for this Court to interfere in the matter.
8. The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of as pre-mature with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities with suitable replies and representations. No costs.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE