Murali Sesh Enviro Engineers vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent-Commissioner was right in law in holding that the order of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings (ACAR) as erroneous when the stand taken by the ACAR was one of the possible views?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent was right in law in holding that, the case of the appellant fell under Entry 23 of Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 brushing aside the contention of the appellant that the same fell under Entry 22 of the Sixth Schedule?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent was right in law in holding that, the case of the appellant fell under Entry 23 of Sixth Schedule to the KVAT Act without bringing on record any concrete evidence of the appellant carrying out any contracts not listed in Sixth Schedule but purely on the basis of conjectures and surmises?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent-Commissioner was right in law in holding that the appellant is liable to pay difference tax amount retrospectively with effect from 1-4-2006 dismissing the contention of the appellant that such retrospective order would significantly prejudice the appellant for no fault of him?

In respect of question of law framed at No. 4, this Court in Mangalore Minerals (Private) Limited, Mangalore v. State of Karnataka 2010 (68) Kar. L.J. 668 (HC) (DB) has held that the order of Commissioner passed in revision was for only prospective effect and not for retrospective effect. In that view, the question No. 4 is answered in favour of the appellant.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the other question of law need not be gone into. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part.