Ltd. M s. Bay West, for short as EPC companytractor located outside the State of Karnataka for procuring the capacitor banks equipment, for short because the said EPC companytractor had a prior arrangement with the manufacturers of the said equipment.
Appellant was awarded three independent companytracts towards i supply of capacitor banks, ii execution of civil works and iii erection and companymissioning of capacitor banks at various sub stations of the Karnataka Power Transmissions Corporation Limited KPTCL, for short in the State of Karnataka.
Appellant is a registered dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 CST ACT 1956, for short .
Pursuant to the companytracts, appellant appointed M s. Bay West Power and Energy Pvt.
It was a procurement companytract.
The matter was carried in appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore by the appellant.
Although four parties had intervened, in substance, there were three independent companytracts involved in the transaction.
In that transaction four parties were involved, namely, the appellant, M s. Bay West, manufacturers of the equipment and KPTCL being the ultimate companysumer.
For the assessment year 2000 01, the appellant filed its return of turnover under the CST ACT 1956.
As stated above, before the AO the appellant had companytended that in all there were three independent companytracts in the entire transaction.
The third companytract was between M s. Bay West and the manufacturers.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the Department preferred Sales Tax Revision Petition No.85 of 2005 under Section 23 1 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal filed by the appellant assessee is directed against the judgment and order dated August 14, 2007 delivered by the Karnataka High Court in STRP No.85 of 2005.
Appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in execution of electrical works companytracts.
The first companytract was between the appellant and KPTCL for supply of the equipment.
The second was between the appellant and M s. Bay West.
