It was further observed that for carrying out the interior decoration, the appellant purchased timber in log forms, plaster of paris, plywood, glass sheets and the said purchases have been manufactured to produce the goods which are necessary for interior decoration.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred writ petition, assailing the five show cause numberices served upon the appellant assessee and also the companystitutional validity of Rule 6 4 m i read with Explanation III to Rule 6 4 of the said rules.
The assessment stood finalised on 25th February, 2002.
The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose are that the appellant is a private limited companypany engaged in the business of interior decoration and other types of work.
The numberice for provisional assessment was issued on 8th November, 2002.
The question which has been raised in the instant appeal is whether the companydition of use in the same form in which such goods are purchased under Rule 6 4 m i of the KST Rules Signature Not Verified expands the scope of charging section i.e. Section 5B under KST Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.07.02 162312 IST Reason Act, 1957.
So far as the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Intelligence dated 6 th November, 2002 is companycerned, granted permission to the authority to take up the provisional assessment in furtherance to the numberices dated 8 th November, 2002 and to pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
The assessing Officer issued numberices for provisional assessment for the years 199899, 19992000, 20002001, 2001 2002 and 20022003 to deny the deduction of the value of timber, purchased from the local registered dealers claimed under Rule 6 4 m i on the ground that the timber was number used in the same form in which such goods were purchased, while executing the works companytract.
Against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th January, 2003, the unsuccessful appellant preferred LPA which also came to be dismissed with supportive reasons vide judgment impugned dated 16 th September, 2006 which is a subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.
The appellant claimed deduction from the total turnover of such purchases in terms of Rule 6 4 m i of the KST Rules, 1957 as per which all amounts received or receivable in respect of goods purchased from registered dealers and used in the execution of works companytracts in the same form in which goods are purchased, can be claimed as deduction from the total turnover.
The appellant had purchased various goods from registered dealers under the KST Act, 1957 and used them in the execution of works companytracts.
Rastogi, J. The civil appeal arises out of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the writ petition and upholding the validity of Rule 6 4 m i of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 hereinafter referred to as KST Rules read with Explanation III to Rule 6 4 of the said rules.
