w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Manipal Media Network Limited Udupi District, Udupi represented by its authorized signatory Sri. P. Vaman Mallya v/s The State of Karnataka Department of Finance by its Secretary, Bangalore

Company & Directors' Information:- NETWORK LIMITED [Active] CIN = L32209DL1989PLC034797

Company & Directors' Information:- MANIPAL MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22221KA1948PLC001159

Company & Directors' Information:- MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65910KA1984PLC005988

Company & Directors' Information:- C N C NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92113DL1998PTC094378

Company & Directors' Information:- S A NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51420MH2001PTC133207

Company & Directors' Information:- V V NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U64200TN2011PTC082529

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K MEDIA NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200JK2000PTC002082

Company & Directors' Information:- NETWORK 1 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U92111DL2000PTC108119

Company & Directors' Information:- MALLYA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1947PTC016023

Company & Directors' Information:- M C NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1998PTC094287

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32203DL1998PTC093917

Company & Directors' Information:- S B T (INDIA) NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC034445

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA NETWORK (I) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U09211DL1996PTC082942

Company & Directors' Information:- N R NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC112418

Company & Directors' Information:- S S NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL1999PTC102107

Company & Directors' Information:- S M B NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TZ2011PTC017481

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1990PTC010634

Company & Directors' Information:- V J NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52392TN2008PTC066742

Company & Directors' Information:- C H K NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120UR2011PTC033438

Company & Directors' Information:- R S G M NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC198901

Company & Directors' Information:- A T NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909CH2001PTC024541

Company & Directors' Information:- D P R NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2004PTC126258

Company & Directors' Information:- S S R MEDIA NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2011PTC225216

Company & Directors' Information:- K P B MEDIA NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22300MP2010PTC023786

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND V NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32201MP2007PTC019567

Company & Directors' Information:- N G P NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2020PTC346257

Company & Directors' Information:- T K NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090JH2021PTC016589

Company & Directors' Information:- H R NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909DL2002PTC114862

Company & Directors' Information:- H V K NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC079365

Company & Directors' Information:- R S MEDIA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22219KA2009PTC048828

    STRP Nos. 325 of 2014 & 65-66 of 2015

    Decided On, 25 November 2015

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: H. Vani, Advocate. For the Respondent: T.K. Vedamurthy, HCGP.

Judgment Text

(These STRPs are filed under Section 23(1) of KST Act, against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed in STA.78 to 80/2010 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Bangaluru, dismissing the appeals.)

Vineet Saran, J.

The assessee has filed these petitions relating to the assessment years 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2004-05, challenging the order of the Tribnal, whereby the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed.

2. In short, the facts of this case are that the assessee is in the business of publication of newspaper for which newsprint is used, which is admittedly ‘goods’, which is taxable under the Sales Tax Act, even though the newspaper is exempted from such tax. The dispute in the present case is with regard to stock transfer of newsprint from Manipal to Mumbai, which the petitioner-assessee claims was for printing of its newspaper in Mumbai and was transferred from its office in Manipal to its own office in Mumbai. However, it is not disputed that though the newsprint was meant for printing newspaper by the office of the petitioner-assessee in Mumbai, but for whatever reason, the newspaper was printed, not in the office or the printing press of the assessee at Mumbai, but outside. Since the assessee did not furnish the requisite Form-F, as required under section 6A pf the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), the exemption from tax was denied to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The first appeal filed before the Commissioner, as well as further appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, were both dismissed. Challenging the said orders, these petitions have been filed.

3. We have heard Ms. H. Vani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee as well as Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and have perused the record.

4. Section 6A of the Act relates to burden to prove in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. For claiming exemption under the said provision, what is required is that a statutory Form-F be furnished by the assessee from the authority where the recipient of the goods is registered as a dealer. In the present case, it is not disputed that the office of the assessee at Mumbai was not registered as dealer and as such no Form-F was furnished by the assessee.

5. By an amendment brought in the year 2002 in sub-section [1] of section 6-A of the Act, it has been clearly provided that.

'If the dealer fails to furnish such declaration then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale.'

6. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Tribunal has rightly held that when the statute mandates production of any declaration. Form to claim the benefit, such Form has to be filed, as non productin of the same disentitles the assessee to the claim the benefit.

7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee herein would be disentitled to claim stock transfer benefit without furnishing the declaration to Form-F as mandatorily required by section 6A of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has vehemently urged that a liberal view should be taken in the case of newspaper industry, as has been held so by the Apex Court in the cases of ‘Printers (Mysore) Ltd. & Another v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Others [1994 (93) STC 95) and ‘Indian Express Newspaper [Bombay] Private Limited and others etc., v. Union of India and Others [AIR 1986 SC 515).

9. The facts of the cases before the Apex Court were different from the facts of the case at hand. Since in the present case, the Act mandates exemption to be granted only if the assessee fulfils a particular condition, which, admittedly has not b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

een fulfilled by the assessee, the court is not left with any discretion in allowing the exemption, and such view as has been taken by the authorities below is completely justified and does not call for interference. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any question of law which may arise in these petitions for determination by this court. 11. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.