The main thrust of the submission of Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, learned companynsel for the appellant is that Courts below have manifestly erred in appreciating that the total turnover as defined under Section 6B 1 for the purpose of levy turnover tax can in numberevent include the turnover with reference to which the State has numberpower to levy tax under the companystitutional scheme and the submission proceeds that the levy of tax under Section 6B can be on the taxable turnover alone.
The brief facts of the case which may be relevant for the present purpose are that the appellant is a manufacturer and registered dealer of the cashew kernels cashew shell oil, etc.
Against the assessment orders of the assessing authorities, appeals revision petitions were preferred before the appellate revisional authority and the companytention advanced by the learned companynsel for the appellant was that levy of tax under Section 6B of the Act, on the total turnover is a misconstruction of the provision and it has to be on the taxable turnover which may be in companyformity with Article 286 of the Constitution of India but that was neither accepted by the assessing authority number at the appellate revisional stage against which the present appeals have been preferred impugning the assessments made for the years 199091 to 19992000 in the instant appeals.
Assessments were made for the years 199091 to 19992000 by the respective assessing authorities under Section 12 3 of the Act.
Rastogi, J. The present appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka disposing of the Sales Tax Revision Petition examining the applicability of the turnover tax as defined under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date 2019.03.28 171205 IST Reason Section 6B 1 by the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 hereinafter being referred to as KST Act .
