Partly allowed

Vidhya Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Apr 2009OT.Rev/5/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of tax revision petitions challenging VAT assessment based on estimated turnover. It allowed the appeal subject to payment of net sales tax with interest over six weeks. Tax under Section 6(2) for purchase turnover is to be excluded if paid within three months, otherwise the revision is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Assessment confirmed except for tax under Section 6(2) if 50% sales tax with interest paid within six weeks in two installments; otherwise dismissed.

Vidhya Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

OT.Rev.No. 5 of 2009() --------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2008 IN TAVAT.50 /2008 IN TA(VAT).49/2008 of KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .

¶6

PETITIONER(S) APPELLANT ------------------------------

¶7

VIDHYA KRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, JANCO CRUSHER UNIT, MUDIYOORKONAM, PANTHALAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. MR.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.K.V.LEKSHMY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT

¶10

--------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA.

¶12

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, ALONG WITH OTRV NO. 6 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶14

O.T.Revn. Nos: 5 & 6 OF 2009

¶15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th April, 2009.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶18

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Govt. Pleader. After hearing both sides we are of the view that questions pertaining to determination of turnover based on production estimated based on power consumption does not call for any interference because those are only mere findings of fact sustained by the Tribunal. However, it is seen that 50% of the estimated sales turnover is taken as purchase turnover of rubble on which tax is demanded under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act. If petitioner had paid this tax then he would have got rebate under Section 12 of the Act. However relief is declined for the reason that petitioner has not remitted tax under Section 6(2) of the Act. We feel the benefit can still be extended to the petitioner if petitioner clears the assessed tax excluding tax assessed under Section 6(2) within a reasonable period. Revision cases are accordingly disposed of sustaining the assessment confirmed by the Tribunal but with direction to the Assessing Officer to exclude tax demanded under Section 6(2) on

¶19

O.T.Revnision Nos: 5 & 6/2009

¶20

¶21

purchase turnover if petitioner remits tax along with interest on the sales turn over estimated. In other words payment of net tax with interest will discharge petitioner of full liability. However, if payment is not made within three months as stated below revision cases will stand dismissed. 50% of the tax with interest should be paid within six weeks from now and balance 50% with interest will be paid within six weeks thereafter.

¶22

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶23

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶24

¶25

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

¶26

M.F.A.NO:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Dated:

Vidhya Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhya Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.v.Ouseph Vs State of Kerala

Zeenath Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S.Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.V. Alikoya