The Court held that where an assessee claimed exemption but later escaped tax revenue by bringing goods from outside, the revision under Section 19 making additional tax demand warrants payment of interest under Sections 23(3A) and 23(3). Appeals were dismissed.
Appeals concerning liability to pay interest on revised assessment dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930
ST.Appl..No. 1 of 2008() -----------------------R2.60494/2004/TX of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM ....................
APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IN SUO-MOTU PROCEEDINGS:
T.B.SAJEEV, PROPRIETOR, EMERALD CORPORATION, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 015.
BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS
BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN
THIS SALES TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH S.T. APPEAL NO.2/2008 ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
.................................................................... S.T. Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2008
.................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The question raised in the appeals filed by the very same assessee is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act as held by the Tribunal. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
was revised under Section 19 bringing to tax escaped turnover. The petitioner admitted the offence and compounded the same by
2
remittance of maximum compounding fee of Rs.2 lakhs. In the circumstances, this is a clear case where the turnover was escaped in the original assessment and consequently revised assessment was made under Section 19. Interest under Section 23(3A) read with Section 23
(3) is payable when assessment is revised under Section 19 demanding additional tax. Appeals are consequently dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
pms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act.
Whether interest under Section 23(3A) read with Section 23(3) is payable when assessment is revised under Section 19 demanding additional tax.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K. Damodaran v. State of KeralaDoubted¶21
P.K. Damodaran v. State of Kerala (2004) 12 KTR 133
3 provisions across 1 enactments
T.B. Sajeev, Proprietor, Emerald Corporation
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram
The Additional Sales Tax Officer - I, Ist Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
