M/s. M.J.S. ENTERPRISES, M/s H.B. ENTERPRISES, M/s ROYAL AUTOMOBILES, M/s M.G. AUTOMOBILES, M/s S.A. AUTOMOBILES, M/s T.S. ENTERPRISES, M/s INDUS STEEL TRADERS, M/s M.M. ENTERPRISES, M/s A.M.K. ENTERPRISES, M/s A.J. ENTERPRISES, M/s FARHAN STEEL Versus THE CONTROLLER OF STORES & PURCHASE, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES – 2017 (9) TMI 1301 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – 2017 (6) G. S. T. L. 152 (Kar.) – Rate of GST on old and scrap buses – Validity of Tender notice for Auction – classification of old and scrap Buses – Whether buses would attract GST @ 28% as normal buses or at the rate of 18% under Schedule-III Heading No.7204 “Ferrous waste and scrap; remelting scrap ingots of iron or steel” or under Residuary Entry No.453 of the same Schedule-III, in which, “Goods which are not specified in Schedule I, II, IV, V or VI” of the KGST Act? – Held that: – at such initial tender process initiated by th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
i. Shankare Gowda M.N. For the Respondent : Sri. T. K. Vedamurthy, AGA ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are the auction purchasers of the scrap or intending Bidders have approached this Court by way of present petitions with the following prayers:- (i) The Petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the E- auction Notification Nos.17-18/9012, 9013, 9014, 9015, 9016, 17-18/9212 and 17-18/9819 issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure – A to G ). (ii) The Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon ble High Court may be pleased to declare that the rate of tax applicable on the sale of scrap buses is 18% falling under either heading 7204 of 3rd schedule or Entry No.453 of 3rd schedule of the KGST Act. (iii) This Hon ble High Court may be pleased to issue such other writ or writs or directions in the nature of a writ as this Hon ble High Court may deem it fit to gr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ies as the scrap, not fit to be plied on road, cannot attract 28% rate of GST under the new GST regime enacted in the Central GST Act, 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and therefore, this Court by interfering in the present petitions may direct the Respondents-KSRTC to collect the GST Tax only at the rate of 18% under Schedule-III Heading No.7204 Ferrous waste and scrap; remelting scrap ingots of iron or steel or under Residuary Entry No.453 of the same Schedule-III, in which, Goods which are not specified in Schedule I, II, IV, V or VI of the KGST Act, so that the petitioners may have a competitive edge to give their bids at the correct rate of GST Tax applicable as per the said Schedule and the Respondent-KSRTC has wrongly notified the rate of GST Tax as 28%. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Authority for Advance Ruling for resolving such disputes about the rate of Tax under the said new enactments has not so far been constituted a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ch initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. First of all, the GST rates as indicated in the said E-Tender Notice Annexure-A does not give the fixed rate of GST at 28% as submitted by the petitioners. It only stipulates the rate of GST As applicable /28.0 . 7. Whether the correct rate is 18% GST as claimed by the petitioners under the aforesaid entries of Schedule-III or 28% or not can be clarified either by the Respondents-KSRTC or the Respondent-Commercial Tax Department. It is for the petitioners to participate in the said Tender process as per the terms indicated therein or not to so participate. The E-Tender Notice cannot be quashed by this Court, as this Court does not find illegality in the same. 8. It would be premature for this Court to decide such academic questions at this stage, when the very foundation of such a dis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the learned counsel for the petitioners, again it does not render it a fit case to invoke writ jurisdiction at this stage. It is for the petitioners to approach and represent the concerned Government for the constitution and manning of these Advance Ruling Authorities, as prescribed under Section 96 of the GST Act. 9. This Court does not have any definite information on the record of this Court about the actual constitution and manning of the said Advance Ruling Authority by the Respondent-State, but that is not a ground at all to invoke the writ jurisdiction prematurely and academically to decide the question of rate of Tax at the instance of the petitioners, particularly as the questions are raised in the context of the contractual process undertaken by the Respondents-KSRTC, in which also, the rate of GST applicable has been shown as As Applicable/28.0 . Therefore, the correct rate of GST as applicable on the goods in question only is intended to be levied. The bar/stroke between A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =