Remanded

M/S Tbs Tyre Shoppee v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2011OT.Rev/60/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in tax revisions regarding registration under the Kerala VAT Act, set aside lower appellate orders and remanded the matter to the assessing officer. The court directed the officer to verify whether the petitioner furnished all necessary documents to determine the correct date of registration entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Revisions allowed; orders of appellate authorities set aside; matter restored to assessing officer for reconsideration after verification and opportunity to the petitioner.

M/S Tbs Tyre Shoppee Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

OT.Rev.No. 60 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

TA(VAT)40/2011 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT

¶9

¶10

M/S. TBS TYRE SHOPPEE,

¶11

K.M. VARGHESE ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶13

SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ

¶14

SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH

¶15

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT

¶16

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURA. 695 001.

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ.

¶19

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, ALONG WITH OTRV NO. 61 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O.T.REV. 60/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

ANNEXURE-A	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM DATED 31.3.2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-B	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-C	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 8.4.2011 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN TA(VAT) 40/2011 AND 41/2011.

// TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

KNC/-

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶27

DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2011.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶30

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for respondent. The only question raised is the date with reference to which registration has to be granted to the petitioner under the K.V.A.T. Act. According to the petitioner, he submitted an application simultaneously with commencement of business on 1.12.2006. However, admittedly, the registration fee was remitted only on 21.3.2007. The assessing authority conducted inspection on 3.5.2007 and granted registration with effect from that date, which is upheld by the appellate authority including the Tribunal. The O.T. Revision cases are filed essentially for the same relief for registration with back date.

¶31

The Government Pleader has referred to the orders of the lower authorities including the Tribunal wherein it is clearly stated that registration is granted with effect from the date of submission of valid application, which, according to the officer, is 3.5.2007. However, learned

¶32

O.T. REV. Nos. 60 & 61 of 2011 2

¶33

counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 3.5.2007 only inspection was conducted and the officer was satisfied about the petitioner's eligibility for registration. In other words, all the documents in support of the application along with valid application were on record which were processed and allowed by the officer after inspection on 3.5.2007.

¶34

After hearing both sides, what we notice is that the officer has not stated as to the defects, if any, in the application originally filed. If the petitioner had only submitted an application and had not submitted documents relevant for considering registration, certainly, the application gets validity only when everything is made up for the officer to process the application. Since the assessing officer has not stated as to what were the things missing in the application which prevented him to process the same, we feel one more opportunity should be given to the officer to go through the records and the stages in which the petitioner has made up the deficiencies in the applications. We make it clear that trivial defects should not be treated as a ground to reject the application. On the other hand, if documents necessary for granting registration were not there, the officer is bound to consider and grant registration on the date on which the petitioner furnished all the details. Since verification of facts are required, we allow

¶35

O.T. REV. Nos. 60 & 61 of 2011 3

¶36

these revisions by setting aside the orders of the two appellate authorities and restore the matter to the assessing officer for reconsideration of the date of entitlement for registration of the petitioner, which should be done after verifying the records and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted registration with effect from any anterior date, ie. beyond the date of registration presently granted ie. 3.5.2007, then the assessing officer will give eligible input tax credit for the two return periods ie. January and February, 2007 also and revise the assessment impugned in the O.T. Rev. cases.

¶37

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE).

¶38

P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶39

knc/-

M/S Tbs Tyre Shoppee v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tbs Tyre Shoppee 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

The Commissioner of Custom Vs M/S. Kitex Garments Ltd.

Parrisons Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

Union of India and Others Vs K.Vijayakumar

Santhosh Kumar S.V Vs the Deputy Comptrollet & Auditor General

Seasame Software Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Mary Jose Vs Jr of Co-Op Societies, Kottayam