Dismissed

M/S.Ebenezar Press Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2009ST.Appl./15/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the appeal against an order remanding a matter for fresh investigation under the KGST Act. The High Court held that since no finding was entered against the appellant, no grievance existed, leaving contentions open for the original authority. (Note: Subject classification inferred from context of commercial tax recovery.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S.Ebenezar Press Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930

¶3

ST.Appl..No. 15 of 2008()

¶4

¶5

APPELLANT

¶6

----------------------------M/S.EBENEZAR PRESS PVT.LTD. EBENEZAR STREET, PULLAZHI POST, THRISSUR, KERALA 680012,REPRESENTED BY'ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR T.F.JAMES.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TAXES,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.

¶12

BY G.P. SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN

¶13

THIS SALES TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

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

¶15

S.T. A. No. 15 OF 2008

¶16

Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Ramachandran Nair,J.

¶19

Appeal is filed against the order issued by the Commissioner under Section 37 of the KGST Act setting aside the first revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling penalty. Petitioner is a printing press which has printed and transported massive quantity of advertisement materials on the orders of the advertising agency. Even though petitioner contended that petitioner has done only job work the advertising agency confirmed that petitioner's claim that they have supplied materials was wrong. Therefore printing work is nothing but a works contract on which applicable tax is payable. However, if standard printed material is sold then the same may amount to sale of printed materials. Since contents of the printing materials transported are not known, it is a matter for investigation and find out whether the transaction is sale of goods or whether it is printing work done for

¶20

¶21

another party. In the latter case, tax is payable on the material supplied namely, paper and other materials on which printing is done. We notice from the order of the Commissioner that he has only remanded the matter for fresh investigation and for decision afresh. Since no finding is entered against the petitioner, petitioner cannot have grievance against the order of the Commissioner. All contentions which the petitioner wants to raise are left open to be raised before the original authority.

¶22

Appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

¶23

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.

¶24

¶25

M/S.Ebenezar Press Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S.Ebenezar Press Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tvm. Vs M/S.Kallumoottil Jewellers, Pallimukku

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Thiruvana Vs Lakshmanan & Co., Kollam

Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur Vs M/S. Kallur Chit Funds and Finance (P)

Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichur Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Comm. of Income Tax, Trivandrum Vs S. Sandeep Kumar,Pachayil Ind., Kadakkal

Indal Photo Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes