Skip to content


K. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. the State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R.P. No. 79 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1982]49STC275(Kar)
ActsKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 8A and 23(1)
AppellantK. Ramakrishna Rao
RespondentThe State of Karnataka
Advocates:C.N. Kamath, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....are therefore restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiffs over suit house. prayer of plaintiffs to declare them to be dismissed as unregistered documents and mutation entry will not confer any ownership rights on plaintiffs. - 1. in this petition under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957, read with section 8a of the karnataka sales tax (amendment) act, 1976, the two questions urged by the petitioner are these :(i) whether the assessing officer was justified in making a best judgment assessment of the turnover; 2. the karnataka appellate tribunal has given reasons for upholding the best judgment assessment. the reasons given by the tribunal, in our opinion, is a good one. 5. we do not see any good ground to admit this petition and..........sub-section (1) of section 23 of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957, read with section 8a of the karnataka sales tax (amendment) act, 1976, the two questions urged by the petitioner are these : (i) whether the assessing officer was justified in making a best judgment assessment of the turnover; and (ii) whether the brass cradle manufactured by the assessee, could be treated as furniture for levy of tax. 2. the karnataka appellate tribunal has given reasons for upholding the best judgment assessment. the assessee did not maintain the manufacturing account showing the wages paid for labour. the reasons given by the tribunal, in our opinion, is a good one. the tribunal has also pointed out that while making the estimate of the turnover, the gross profit of 25 per cent was added to the.....
Judgment:

Chandrashekhar, C.J.

1. In this petition under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976, the two questions urged by the petitioner are these :

(i) Whether the assessing officer was justified in making a best judgment assessment of the turnover; and

(ii) Whether the brass cradle manufactured by the assessee, could be treated as furniture for levy of tax.

2. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has given reasons for upholding the best judgment assessment. The assessee did not maintain the manufacturing account showing the wages paid for labour. The reasons given by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is a good one. The Tribunal has also pointed out that while making the estimate of the turnover, the gross profit of 25 per cent was added to the cost of materials. The estimate of turnover made by the assessing authority was reasonable and does not call for interference.

3. Shri C. N. Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that brass cradle could not be regarded as furniture. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that brass cradle was an article of furniture. Sri Kamath drew our attention to the amendment of item No. 108 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act so as to restrict the scope of that entry to wooden furniture only. But that amendment was made subsequent to the assessment year in question and hence has no application to the present case.

4. We do not see why furniture manufactured out of wood only should be regarded as furniture and furniture manufactured out of metal should not be regarded as furniture.

5. We do not see any good ground to admit this petition and accordingly we dismiss it.

6. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //