Allowed

Intelligence Officer(Ib) v. B.a.Shanavas

Kerala HC17 Oct 2012RP/917/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition in a writ petition challenging a judgment that taxed Margarine at 4%. The High Court of Kerala recalled the earlier judgment and posted the writ petition before an appropriate Bench due to the perceived inapplicability of the cited Supreme Court decision under KVAT Act provisions.

What did the court decide?

Previous judgment recalled and writ petition posted before the appropriate Bench.

Intelligence Officer(Ib) Vs B.a.Shanavas — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 917 of 2012 (L)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.12918/2012 DATED 07-06-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN WP(C) :

¶8

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶9

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER (TAXES) SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHEN

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C) :

¶11

B.A.SHANAVAS M/S. CALCUTTA TRADERS AND BAS AGENCIES KANJIRAPALLY.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶16

R.P. NO. 917 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). 12918 OF 2012 & C.M. APPL. NO. 219 OF 2012

¶17

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2012

¶18

ORDER

¶19

C.M. APPLN. NO. 219/2012

¶20

Sri. N. Muraleedharan Nair appears on behalf of the

¶21

respondent. Considering the explanation offered in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.

¶22

R.P. NO. 917 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). 12918 OF 2012

¶23

The review petitioner, who was the respondent in the writ petition seeks to review the judgment dated 07.06.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 12918/2012, whereby the relief sought for was granted and the tax liability of the writ petitioner was declared to be of an extent of 4%, treating 'Margarine' as an 'edible oil', as declared by the Apex Court in 45 VST 1.

¶24

The dispute raised before this Court was whether the said commodity dealt with by the writ petitioner would attract tax at the lesser rate of 4% or at the higher rate of 12.5%. The issue

¶25

R.P. NO. 917 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). 12918 OF 2012 & C.M. APPL. NO. 219 OF 2012

¶26

¶27

came to be finally decided by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in Aluva Sugar Agency vs. State of Kerala [45 VST 1], whereby it was held that the concerned commodity was liable to be treated as an 'edible oil' and will attract only the lesser rate of tax at 4%. It was accordingly, that the writ petition was disposed of, extending the relief sought for.

¶28

Now, the case projected in the review petition is that, the issue considered by the Supreme Court was in relation to the provisions under the KGST Act; whereas the assessment in the present writ petition is in respect of the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 respectively. By virtue of the specific provisions of the KVAT Act, there is a separate entry, dealing with the tax rate of 'Margarine' and as such, it was liable to be taxed at a higher rate of 12.5%. This being the position, the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision cited supra is stated as not applicable to the case in hand and the judgment passed by this Court requires to be reviewed.

¶29

R.P. NO. 917 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). 12918 OF 2012 & C.M. APPL. NO. 219 OF 2012

¶30

After hearing the learned Government Pleader

¶31

appearing for the review petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the review petition, this Court

¶32

finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered.

¶33

In the said circumstance, the judgment passed by this Court is recalled and the Registry is directed to post the writ petition before the appropriate Bench as per the roster.

¶34

The review petition is allowed. No cost.

¶35

SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

DCS

Intelligence Officer(Ib) v. B.a.Shanavas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intelligence Officer(Ib) v. B.a.Shanavas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulaikha P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Surendran P.A Vs M/S. Iti Limited

Manager, Auzillium School, Varakkad, Vs State

Sivasankaran.P. Vs K. Chandran

C.Chandran Vs Assistant Security Commissioner

M.K.Raveendran Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom