Karnataka High Court
M/S.Jituri Cement Products vs Commercial Tax Officer (Enf-3) on 1 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14166
WP No. 60494 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NOS. 60494-496 OF 2010 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S.JITURI CEMENT PRODUCTS,
CROSS NO.3, VADAGAON,
BELGAUM ( BY SRI. YELLUSA JIRUTI, 30 YEARS)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL KALBURGI, SRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR &
SRI.PATRI SHASHIKALA K.,ADVS.)
AND:
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENF-3),
NORTH ZONE, BELGAUM.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VN TO GOVERNMENT,
BADIGER
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
Date: 2023.12.06
11:19:33 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION NO.FD 141 CSL 2007(1)
DTD.30/3/2007 AS IN ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN SO FAR AS CEMENT IS CONCERNED; 2.SET
ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD.6/1/2010 AS IN ANNEXURE-B AND B1
AND B2 RELATING TO THE YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND
2009-10 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14166
WP No. 60494 of 2010
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This case was disposed of vide order dated
03.11.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents had
submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely
covered in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of M/s. J. K. Cement Works Vs. The State of
Karnataka, Sales Tax Revision Petition
No.100001/2014 and connected matters and also in
the case of M/s. Maya Appliances (P) Ltd now known
as Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Addl.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others,
Civil Appeal Nos.357-367/2018.
3. The submission was not disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
4. The matter was listed for being spoken to as
requested, as the order dated 03.11.2023 was not signed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14166
5. Both the counsel jointly submitted that in the
aforementioned cases, the issue involved in this case is
not decided. This being the position, the matter was
ordered to be listed today for further hearing.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner would not press the prayer wherein he
has questioned the validity of the notification.
7. Submission is placed on record.
8. If validity of the notification at Annexure-A is
not called in question, then what remains is Annexures-B
and B1, which are the orders passed under Section 38(5)
of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act
2003' for short).
9. In that event, the aforementioned orders can
be questioned by filing appeal before the appropriate
appellate authority under Section 62 of the KVAT Act
2003. Hence liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
approach the Appellate Forum if adviced under law.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14166
10. The time spent in prosecuting this petition to be
excluded while computing limitation in case appeal is filed.
11. Registry to return copies of the impugned order
after retaining xerox copies.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kgk
