Karnataka High Court
M/S Brindavan Alcohol And Allied ... vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 11 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
R.P.No.281/2020 IN W.A.No.256/2006 (T-KST)
BETWEEN :
M/S BRINDAVAN ALCOHOL AND
ALLIED CHEMICALS PVT LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.99, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MYSURU 570004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR B.A.LAKSHMAN MAJOR. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI THIRUMALESH.M, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARNATAKA,
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICES COMPLEX,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560009
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE
-2-
COURT TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION FILED HEREIN FOR
REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/01/2019 PASSED IN
WA.NO.256/2006 ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSION THAT
RECTIFIED SPIRIT IS IDENTIFIED AS ETHYL ALCOHOL IN THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SYNTHETICS AND
CHEMICALS LTD., 1990 (1) SCC 109, AND HENCE EVEN FOR
THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION UNDER KARNATAKA SALES TAX
ACT, RECTIFIED SPIRIT MUST BE TREATED AS ETHYL
ALCOHOL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner
seeking review of the judgment dated 16.1.2019 passed
in WA.No.256/2006 and allied matters.
2. This Review Petition is filed mainly
reiterating the grounds urged before the Court in the
writ petition/writ appeal proceedings inasmuch as the
differential treatment said to have been meted out to
'rectified spirit' in comparison with 'ethyl alcohol' under
Entry 12 of Part - S of Second Schedule to the
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the commodity 'rectified spirit' contains not less
than 95% of ethyl alcohol by volume. The petitioner -
assessee had purchased the rectified spirit/ethyl alcohol
to manufacture organic compounds viz., acetic acid.
Hence, bringing rectified spirit under sub entry 12(ii)
taxable at the rate of 20% and ethyl alcohol under sub
entry 12(iii) at the rate of 10% under Entry 12 of Part -
S of Second Schedule to the KST Act, is arbitrary and is
not in conformity with the settled legal principles as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., v. State of U.P.,
reported in 1990 (1) SCC 109 as well as Bihar
Distillery v. Union of India, reported in 1997 (2) SCC
727.
3. These arguments indeed were extensively
considered in the writ appeal while confirming the order
of the learned Single Judge in holding that 'rectified
spirit' which is ultimately used in alcoholic beverages
for human consumption, is liable to tax under sub entry
12(ii) of Part-S of Second Schedule to the KST Act at
20%. It is trite that the State Legislature in its wisdom
has fixed the rate of tax at 20% on the 'rectified spirit'
used in alcoholic beverages for human consumption at
20% and it is within the competency of the State
Legislature.
4. It is well settled that the scope of review is
limited. No error apparent on the face of the record is
found to review the judgment as sought for. No roving
enquiry could be done in the review petition to rehear
the matter which was heard and adjudicated.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any
merit in the review petition. Even otherwise, we are not
convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner
to condone the delay of 375 days in filing the Review
Petition. The same being not sufficient cause, IA.I/2020
filed for condonation of delay of 375 days requires to be
dismissed.
6. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 as well as Review
Petition stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC/nd.
