Dismissed

P.K.Abdul Majeed v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode

Kerala HC2 Aug 2012OT.Rev/58/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act regarding the tax rate on the sale of used transformer oil. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the oil was taxable at 12.5% under Section 6(1)(d) and not 4% as crude oil under Entry 32.

What did the court decide?

The Other Tax Revision stands rejected; the questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue.

P.K.Abdul Majeed Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/11TH SRAVANA 1934

¶7

O.T.Rev.No.58 of 2012

¶8

[AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.(VAT).NO.190/2010 DATED 29.02.2012 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM] [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, JUNE & JULY 2009]

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER /APPELLANT:-

¶10

P.K.ABDUL MAJEED, PROP. MS. FEROKE IRON TRADERS, CHERUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN

¶12

SRI.P.RAGHUNATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS:-

¶14

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)

¶16

KOZHIKODE.

¶17

KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM - 682 015.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN.

¶19

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Vinod Chandran, JJ.

¶21

O.T.Rev.No.58 of 2012

¶22

Dated this, the 2^nd day of August, 2012

¶23

ORDER

¶24

K.Vinod Chandran,J.

¶25

The assessee, a dealer registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter referred

¶26

to as “the Act”, is before us challenging the assessment made under Section 22 of the Act.

¶27

On verification of the monthly returns, for

¶28

the months of June and July 2009, the rate of tax

¶29

applied on sale of transformer oil was returned as 4% which, according to the Assessing Officer, should have been 12.5%. Notice was issued under Section 22 of the

¶30

Act and such sale of inedible oil, viz., transformer oil, was assessed at the rate of 12.5%. The dealer's contention that it had infact purchased used transformer oil from the Kerala State Electricity Board at the rate of 4% and effected sale of the very same goods was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The first appeal and the appeal before the Tribunal also were futile.

¶31

O.T.Rev.No.58 of 2012

¶32

¶33

The assessee, before the lower appellate authorities as also before us, relied on Annexure II document issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board. In our opinion, the said document is totally irrelevant and the understanding of the Board with respect to the taxing aspect of the goods sold by it is misconceived, going by the provisions of the Act. We do not say anything more, since it is not the Board's sale which is the subject matter of this revision.

¶34

The Tribunal has considered the contentions of the assessee exhaustively. The fact that the goods purchased by the assessee suffered tax at the rate of 4% cannot at all decide the rate of tax applicable to the goods conclusively. The assessee, going by the Tribunal's order, raised a specific contention that the used transformer oil is to be considered as “crude oil” coming under Entry 32 of the Third Schedule to the Act, taxable at 4%. The Tribunal has extracted Entry 32 of the Third Schedule to the Act as also the relevant paragraph in the Rules of

¶35

O.T.Rev.No.58 of 2012 - 3 -

¶36

Interpretation of the Schedules to hold that the transformer oil dealt with by the assessee, being used transformer oil, cannot be considered as “crude oil” coming within Entry 32, the contours of which is defined by the Rules of Interpretation. We are in perfect agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that the used transformer oil sold by the assessee is taxable under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act is perfectly in order and the questions of law raised by the assessee in the above revision are answered in favour of

¶37

the Revenue and against the assessee. The Other Tax Revision, hence, stands rejected.

¶38

Sd/Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge

¶39

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶40

vku/2812

¶41

true copy -

P.K.Abdul Majeed v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Abdul Majeed v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode

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

Francis Mukkanical Vs the General Manager

Suo Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

P. Ramachandran Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prajesh Chandran and Another

P.a.Aneesh Amar Timber Traders, Perumbavoor Vs State of Kerala

Sreeneelakanda Vilasam Karayogam Vs Travancore Devaswom Board