‘3 IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALOHE DAD THIS THE 18TH DAY 0! JUNE 1998 BEPORE TEE RON’ BI ME .JUSTICE TIRATH S .THAKIJB 31162/93, ‘WRIT PETITION & 3551OJ1993 BETWEEN : Sri .M.Selvaraj, Major in age, Civil Contractor, No.482, 7th Main,7tb Cross, Gokul II Phase, BANGALOHE—560 054, ,Petitionerjn W, P,No, C By Sri.M,Ramamohan, Mv,, ) 51162/93. AND: 1, The Oommissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka,Vardjya Therige Karyalaya, Gandbinagar, BANGAILRE—560 009, 2, The Asst,Commjgsjoner of omyieroiol Tqxes, 38th Orcle, BANGALO, 3, The Tahsildar, P.U,C, & other Recoveries, Division—3, IInd Floor, Krisbi l3havan, BANGA]E ORE, C By Sri.K.M.Sbivayogiswamy,HOGP,jn all the petitions, ) I —2- This writ petitIon filed praying to strike down Sl.No.4 & 6 of Circujar No.CLR.CR.404,353,351,126 and 517/89—90 dt.24—lO—89 and CIR.CRJ’To.lqe/qO—91 dt. 15—12—1990 vide Annexures—A & B respectively; BET7IEEN :- Sri.M,Gopala Reddy, Major, Contractor, No.53,’A, 16th ‘C iain Roal, 4th Block,Kormangala, BANGALORE—560 034. .,.Petitjoner in W.P,No. 35526/93. C By Sri,B.V,Prabhakar, Adv,, ) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Ccumercial Taxes, Vanijya Terige Karyalaya Gandhinagar, BANGAL0R—560 009. 24 The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 30th Circle, BANGALORE. .Respondents, This writ petition fi’ed praying to strik down 3l,Nos,4 & 6 of Circular No,CLR.CR,404,353,126 and 317/89—00 dt,24—1O9 and CLR,CR,198/9091 dt,151290 vide Annexures—A & B respectively issued by let respon dent, etc., BETVEN :— K.N.Chowappa, aged about 50 years, s/o Doddananjappa, r/o No.129, I Main Road, West of Chord Road, II stage ,Mahalakshmipursm, BANGALORE—86, ..,retitjoner in . a 3 41 C By Sri,S,Cbennaraya Reddy,Adv,, ) AND: 1, The State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Govern ment, Pinanee Department, Vidhana Soudha, BANGALOE—56O 001, 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 37th Circle, Srinivasa Complex, let Main Road, Se sbadripuram, BANGAL0R—560 020. ,, .Respondents. This writ petition filed praying to direct the res pondents to compute the taxable turnover for the purpose of Sec .17 by e xcluding labour and rvice and thereafter o fix the rate of composition only on the sale turnover of goods and materials, etc., These writ petitions coming on for orders this day the Court made the following order : ORDER The petitioners have in these writ petitions called in queation certain clarifications issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes from time to time in the nature of ciroulars, They he ala prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to compute their liability to pay sales tax u/s,17(6) of tue Act after excluding labour and service charges from their gross receipts. ‘‘.4 —4— 2, No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to support these petitions. 3, Mr Sbivayogiswamy, learned Govt.Pleader submitted that in so far as the circulars issued by the Commissioner are concerned, the same stood withdraw oonseauent upon the decision of tkiis C.art in Jagadish Colour Lab’s case (ThE 1996 ICar 205), In. that view of the matter, therefore, it is unnecessary for iis Court to examine the validity of the impugned Circulars which no longer hold the field. 4, The only other question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners can demand eclusion. of certain payments like service and labour charges from their turn overs while claiming the benefit of reduced rate of tax /s,17(6), A plain reading of Sec.17 hover shows that the same gives an option to he assessee to pay tax by way of composition at the reduced rates by reference to his total turnover or to opt for a regular Assessment u/s. SB in which event he mr be entitled to all such deductions as may otherwise be legally permissible. There is indeed no compulsion for the assessee to subject him self to the alternative mode of essessnent provided by Sec.17. If the method of taxation prescribed by Sec,17 namely levy by reference to the total turnover is not for ..05 I -5-. any reason acceptable to the assessee, it is open to him to opt for the regular mode of assessment recognised by the Act, In case however he opts for the composition method u/s.17, he shall have to subject himself to the rigors of the said provision without claiming any addi tional aivantages in the nature of exclusion of certain charges frctu the process assessment and levy of tax. To the same effect is the view expressed by their Lordehipe of Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER .v BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS / 104 STO page— 134 /, where their Lordshipa were considering the question of validity of a similar provision found in the Kerala Sales Tax Act. Respectfully following the said deci— sion, I see no reason to interfere or issue a mandamus as prayed for, These writ petitions therefore fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs, JUDGE 3m!- Jan/ a