M/S. EMJAY ENGINEERING COMPANY vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES — STA/20/2025
Case under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 Section 66. Disposed: Contested--Partly Allowed on 09th April 2026.
CNR: KAHC010367632025
Filing Number
STA/19/2025
Filing Date
06-06-2025
Registration No
STA/20/2025
Registration Date
13-06-2025
Judge
S.G.PANDIT , K. V. ARAVIND
Coram
S.G.PANDIT , K. V. ARAVIND
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
STA ( 138 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Partly Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S. EMJAY ENGINEERING COMPANY
Adv. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY
Respondent(s)
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
Hearing History
Judge: S.G.PANDIT , K. V. ARAVIND
NON-COMPLIANCE OF OFFICE-OBJNS FOR 1ST TIME
ADMISSION
ADMISSION
ADMISSION
ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-06-2025 | NON-COMPLIANCE OF OFFICE-OBJNS FOR 1ST TIME |
| 12-03-2026 | ADMISSION |
| 26-02-2026 | ADMISSION |
| 19-02-2026 | ADMISSION |
| 05-02-2026 | ADMISSION |
Orders
The High Court of Karnataka partially allowed M/S. Emjay Engineering Company's appeal against the Suo Motu Revisional Authority's order, setting aside both the reassessment order and the SMR's revision. The court found that none of the three authorities properly applied the Supreme Court's standards for discharging the burden of proof under Section 70 of the KVAT Act—which requires purchasers to prove genuine transactions through specific documentation (seller details, vehicle information, freight charges, delivery acknowledgment, and actual physical movement of goods), not merely invoices and payment evidence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for re-adjudication in conformity with Supreme Court guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Karnataka partially allowed M/S. Emjay Engineering Company's appeal against the Suo Motu Revisional Authority's order, setting aside both the reassessment order and the SMR's revision. The court found that none of the three authorities properly applied the Supreme Court's standards for discharging the burden of proof under Section 70 of the KVAT Act—which requires purchasers to prove genuine transactions through specific documentation (seller details, vehicle information, freight charges, delivery acknowledgment, and actual physical movement of goods), not merely invoices and payment evidence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for re-adjudication in conformity with Supreme Court guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts