Partly allowed

K.Mahesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2011ST.Rev./69/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that treating closing work-in-progress as part of turnover for works contract was justified for the year 2002-03. For 2001-02, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify if closing work-in-progress was assessed in 2000-01 before excluding opening work-in-progress.

What did the court decide?

S.T.Rev.No.70/2011 dismissed; S.T.Rev.No.69/2011 disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify assessment for the year 2000-01 and exclude closing work-in-progress if assessed.

K.Mahesh Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933

¶6

ST.Rev..No. 69 of 2011()

¶7

-----------------------AGAINST ORDER DATED 21/04/2010 IN TA.167/2009 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD.

¶8

PETITIONER / APPELLANT

¶9

¶10

K.MAHESH GOVERNMETN CONTRACTOR, "USHASS",CHAKKITTIA LANE, ERANHIPALAM,CALICUT

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT ---------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SALE TAX, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

¶14

MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 70 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.T.REV.NO.69/2011

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, W.C., KOZHIKODE.

¶20

ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE.

¶21

ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF MODIFIED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20/02/2009.

¶22

ANNEXURE -D : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ADDITIONAL BENCH) KOZHIKODE DATED 11/03/2009.

¶23

ANNEXURE -E : COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/04/2010 PASSED BY THE MEMBER (DEPARTMENT) IN T.A.NO.167/2009.

¶24

ANNEXURE-F : COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/04/2010 PASSED BY THE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) IN T.A.NO.167/2009.

¶25

ANNEXURE-G : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/10/2010 PASSED BY THE MEMBER (ACCOUTNS) IN T.A.NO.167/2009.

¶26

ANNEXURE-H : COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/10/2010 PASSED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN T.A.NO.167/2009.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

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

¶31

.................................................................... S.T.Rev.Nos.69 & 70 of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶35

The question raised in the connected revision cases filed by the very same petitioner is whether the Tribunal was justified in treating closing work-in-progress as part of the turnover for works contract.

¶36

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶37

The petitioner is a contractor engaged in civil construction work. In the assessment completed for the year 2002-03, it is seen that after treating closing work-inprogress as turnover, the Assessing Officer reduced opening work-in-progress. This method of determination of turnover is confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal, against which these revision cases are filed.

¶38

After hearing both sides, we do not find any

¶39

S.T.Rev.Nos.69 & 70/2011

¶40

¶41

justification for interference because when the turnover is adopted under the above pattern only actual turnover gets assessed and there is no duplication. So much so, there is no scope for interference with the appellate order against which S.T.Rev.No.70/2011 is filed. We, therefore, dismiss this S.T.Revision case.

¶42

So far as S.T.Rev.No.69/2011 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the assessment for the year 2001-02 to which the said S.T.Revision case relates, opening work-in-progress is not deducted and so much so there is likelihood of duplication in the assessment. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that without verifying assessment for the year 2000-01, it would not be possible to ascertain whether there was closing work-inprogress assessed for that year to justify exclusion of opening work-in-progress for this year.

¶43

We, feel this is a matter for verification by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we dispose of

¶44

S.T.Rev.Nos.69 & 70/2011

¶45

¶46

S.T.Rev.No.69/2011 filed for the year 2001-02 with a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify assessment for the year 2000-2001 and if closing work-in-progress is assessed then to exclude the same from opening work-in-progress after verifying both years' accounts.

¶47

S.T.Rev.No.69/2011 is disposed of as above and S.T.Rev.No.70/2011 is dismissed.

¶48

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶49

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

¶50

K.Mahesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mahesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.K.Goel Vs Anandavally

V.a.Mathew Vs P.C.Chathurvedi, I.A.S.

C.Geethakumar Vs the Asst.Supdt.of Police

A.Shihabudeen Vs the Managing Director,Army Group Insuran

Gracy Thikunnumpurath Vs Medical Officer/Veterinary Surgeon & Ors.

Gala Ice Creams Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax OFFICER-1, Adoor