Dismissed

Kochi Refineries Ltd., Ambalamughal, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2011ST.Rev./83/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a sales tax revision, the Kerala High Court refused to grant the appellant further indefinite time to obtain C Forms, upholding the Tribunal's notice. The Court held that revisional powers do not exceed the Tribunal's awarding of time and the High Court cannot permit indefinite production of documents.

What did the court decide?

High Court dismissed the revision petition as there was no error in the Tribunal's order warranting interference.

Kochi Refineries Ltd., Ambalamughal, Vs State of Kerala — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933

¶3

ST.Rev..No. 83 of 2011()

¶4

-----------------------TA.212/2010 of DY.CMRR.KERALA AGRL.IT & STAT,EKM. ....................

¶5

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE

¶6

----------------------------------------------------------KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., AMBALAMUGAL, NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., AMBALAMUGAL.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

¶11

BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ

¶12

THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002(CST) DT.24.12.2009.

¶15

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DT.21.6.2010.

¶16

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TA NO.212.2010 DT.11.1.2011.

¶17

ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF MODIFIED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DT.19.5.2011.

¶18

ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF C FORM GATHERED BY THE PETITIONER.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.R.

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

¶23

.................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.83 of 2011

¶24

.................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶27

The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining opportunity to obtain and produce C Forms which were not available even when the matter was heard by the Tribunal. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for respondent.

¶28

The petitioner is a public sector undertaking engaged in refining crude oil and sale of petroleum products. The assessment involved is CST assessment for 2001-2002. On account of nonproduction of C Forms, so much of the interstate sales turnover not covered by C Forms was assessed at the higher rate. Even during first appeal, appellant could not get the C Forms and, therefore, assessment at higher rate got confirmed. However, at the second appellate stage when the Tribunal heard the appeal on 15.12.2010, petitioner could produce C Forms for Rs.2.46 crores. The Tribunal took a very lenient

¶29

S.T.Rev. 83/2011 2

¶30

view and allowed petitioner's claim by directing the Assessing Officer to grant concessional rate in respect of C Forms obtained later. The Assessing Officer also issued revised order on 19.5.2011 granting concessional rate for the valid C Forms produced pursuant to orders of the Tribunal.

¶31

This revision is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal, which in our view, was completely in favour of the petitioner. However, the further relief petitioner wants beyond what the Tribunal has granted is further time to obtain and produce C Forms for the balance turnover. We do not think the Tribunal has any such powers to grant indefinite time to obtain C Forms for production at any time the dealer wants. In fact, C Forms should have been produced at the assessment stage itself and even for accepting belated C Forms, assessee has to furnish explanation. Rightly or wrongly the Tribunal took a lenient view in petitioner's case and accepted all the C Forms produced before them. This in fact amounts to condonation of delay by the Tribunal in the production of C Forms without which the same could not have been ordered to be accepted. In any case the Tribunal

¶32

S.T.Rev. 83/2011 3

¶33

has no powers to grant further time for the petitioner to try for C Forms for the balance turnover. So much so, the Tribunal did not grant time requested for by the petitioner. Strangely even after five months of the Tribunal's order, the petitioner could not obtain the C Forms because even in the revised assessment passed pursuant to Tribunal's order, petitioner could not produce the same. The revisional powers of the High Court does not extend beyond what the Tribunal could do while disposing of the appeal. So much so, in our view, the High Court cannot in exercise of revisional powers grant indefinite time to obtain and produce C Forms. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference by us. Consequently the revision case is dismissed.

¶34

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶35

P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge

¶36

pms

Kochi Refineries Ltd., Ambalamughal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochi Refineries Ltd., Ambalamughal, 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

The Commissioner of Incometax, Tvm. Vs Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Ltd.

S.Sayed Koya and Another Vs Union of India and Others

K.I.Fasily Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs the High Land Produce Co.Ltd

Union of India Vs K.G.Girish Kumar

M/S.Thomas King Electronics Vs State of Kerala