Karnataka High Court
M/S Mangalore Refinery And ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
S.T.R.P. NO.435 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
M/S MANGALORE REFINERY AND
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED
KUTHETOOR P.O., VIA KATIPALLA
MANGALORE-575030
(REP. BY SURINDER PAL SINGH CHAWLA
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY).
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA)
---
THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED IN STA NO.66/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED
17.12.2016 PASSED IN KVAT/AP/312 TO 321/2013-14 ON THE
2
FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
ORDER DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED IN MRPL/VAT/2011-12 ON THE
FILE OF THE DCCT, MANGALURU, FILED UNDER SEC.39(1) OF THE
KVAT ACT, 2003 R/W SEC.72(2) AND 36 OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003
FOR THE TAX PERIODS OF APRIL 2011 TO MARCH 2012.
THIS STRP. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.Ravi Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent.
This petition under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka
Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act' for short), has been filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal. The petition was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law by order dated 11.10.2018:
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of this case, the KAT was right in
holding that the conditions for availment of
input tax credit in respect of capital goods
under Section 12(2) of the KVAT Act are not
independent of one another?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of this case, the KAT was right in
holding that input tax credit in respect of
capital goods cannot be availed before the
commencement of commercial production as
per Section 12(2) of the KVAT Act?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of this case, the KAT was right in
holding that the conditions as mentioned
under Section 12(2) of the KVAT Act, i.e., sale
of taxable goods or commencement of
commercial production, must necessarily be
related to the petitioner's expansion project
under Phase III itself?
(4) Whether the KAT was right in holding
that the penal provisions under Section 72 of
the KVAT Act are mandatory and thereby
upholding the levy of penalty against the
petitioner in this case?"
2. For the reasons assigned by us today in STRP
No.433/2017, the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 passed
by the Tribunal and order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the
Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot be sustained
in the eye of law and the same are accordingly quashed. The
appellant is held entitled to refund of interest paid under
protest.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
