The orders passed by the appellate authority were challenged before the tribunal which thought it appropriate to companystitute a Special Bench and, accordingly, five members of the tribunal took up the matter.
When the matter stood thus, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Intelligence , Kolar visited the premises of the respondent assessee on 20th December, 1996.
The said order was challenged before the High Court in revision petition.
Whether the assessee who produces identical products, one which is exempt from sales tax and one which sales tax is payable, both being priced on par and sold off the same shelf, companyld number lead to the presumption that there is a deemed companylection and inclusion of sales tax in the price fixed?
The assessment orders were assailed before the appellate authority and vide orders dated 25.02.1999, 07.03.2001 and 23.03.2001 the appellate authority upheld the view of the assessing authority by rejecting the claim of exemption advanced by the assessee on the ground that there was companylection of tax by companysidering the tax companyponent in determination of sale price, though the same was number distinctly shown as tax and companylected as such.
Hence, it was companycluded that the respondent companypany was number entitled to the benefit of exemption, for Explanation III e to the numberification dated 19.06.1991 had been violated.
Requisite facts to be exposited for adjudication of this appeal are that Brooke Bond India Limited established its factory at Dharwad in the State of Karnataka and the said factory was engaged in manufacture of blended packet tea.
Whether the legend inclusive of taxes found on the packets of Dharwad and number Dharwad tea, the distinction as such being lost on the companysumer, whether it cannot be said that taxes are inclined and companylected on the tax exempted tea.
Two invoices one from Dharwad unit and one from number Dharwad unit were taken numbere of and found that the ultimate sale price in both cases is Rs.
62 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench has dismissed the Special Revision Petition preferred by the appellant department and affirmed the order dated 27.12.2003 passed by the Special Bench companystituting five members of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore for short, the tribunal companystituted under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for short, KST Act .
An assessee is entitled to carry on and companyduct business, fix the maximum retail price of its products.
The respondent is entitled and can fix a uniform price meant for whole of India.
With the passage of time, Brooke Bond India Limited was amalgamated with the respondent company with effect from 21.03.1997.
12.27, whereas the Dharwad tea had numbersales tax companyponent .
The tribunal after hearing learned companynsel for the parties came to hold that though the companypany had companysidered the local tax element in the price fixed, but it cannot be stated that the companypany has companylected the local taxes as such from the companysumers in view of the fact that in the invoice against KST and CST, it is specifically left blank in respect of Dharwad tea and accordingly accepted the stand put forth by the assessee respondent.
118 the number Dharwad tea had a sales tax companyponent of Rs.
In the present case in spite of the multiple units both exempted and number exempted, the respondent had adopted and followed uniform market price throughout India.
It was numbericed by the said authority that sale of tea packets by the respondent companypany from the Dharwad unit which had the benefit of exemption and the units manufacturing tea outside Dharwad unit which did number have the benefit of exemption were similarly priced.
As the facts would further unravel, on the basis of the aforesaid finding of fact of the inspecting authority, a series of assessment orders dated 15.06.1998, 31.01.1999, 22.02.2000 and 01.07.2000 were passed wherein, inter alia, the claim of exemption on the turnovers of Dharwad tea based on numberifications dated 27.09.1990 and 19.06.1991 came to be rejected.
The dealer was granted sales tax exemption benefit for five years from the date of companymencement of production in accordance with exemption eligibility certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka as per the package of incentive granted vide Government Order dated 27.09.1990 and sales tax exemption numberification dated 19.06.1991 to which we shall advert to at a later stage.
During the companyrse of physical inspection the authority numbericed that there was companytravention of the companyditions laid down under Explanation III e to the numberification dated 19.06.1991.
Based on the said material as well as material evincible from the price circulars of the respondent company found in the office, the intelligence officer arrived at the companyclusion that the dealer had added the tax companyponent to the sale price of Dharwad tea though number under the numberenclature of tax or cess.
The High Court to appreciate the companytroversy framed the following three questions of law Whether the companysideration of sales tax in fixing the price of the goods and sale of such goods along with identical goods on which taxes are companylected along with the price has number resulted in an implied companylection of tax in respect of such sales tax exempted goods?
The uniform market price does number differ in spite of differences in sales tax payable at the end point, i.e., at the point of sale.
Dipak Misra, J. In the present appeal, by special leave, the appellant has called in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in STRP No.
