Dismissed

Reji Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2013RP/985/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed review petitions against an order under the KVAT Act, holding that grounds amounted to a re-hearing. The Court distinguished prior precedents, ruling that suppression found in a purchaser’s books allows probable additions due to unspecified sales sources, unlike direct assessee inspections.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions dismissed with no order as to costs; additions for probable omissions allowed.

Reji Jose Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶6

R.P.No.985 of 2012

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.T.Rev.No.56/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 13-08-2012

¶8

RIVIEW PETITIONER:-

¶9

REJI JOSE, NEW GOKUL ICE-CREAM PARLOUR, PALA, PIN - 686 575.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT:-

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (TAXES) -682 030, SRI.SOJAN JAMES.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR.

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2013, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.986 OF 2012, THE COURT ON 01-03-2013 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

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

¶16

R.P.No.985 of 2012 in O.T.Rev.No.56 of 2012 & R.P.No.986 of 2012 in O.T.Rev.No.55 of 2012

¶17

Dated this, the 1^st day of March, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

K.Vinod Chandran,J:

¶20

The above review petitions have been filed by the assessee raising many grounds which, according to us, would only lead to a re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible. Under Section 63(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short “KVAT Act”), the power is only to review an order on the basis of discovery of new and important facts which after the exercise of due diligence were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the order was made. There is no such contention raised and the grounds in the review petitions essentially seeks a re-hearing of the matter, which we decline to embark upon.

¶21

The learned Senior Counsel, however, also brings to our notice two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Chilton Refrigeration v. State of Kerala [(2004) 138 STC 472] and in S.T.Rev.No.300 of 2008 dated 24.10.2008 , wherein it was categorically held that when an inspection was made after the expiry

¶22

RP.No.985/2012 in O.T.Rev.56/2012 & RP.No.986/2012 in O.T.Rev.55/2012 &

¶23

of the assessment year, then only the actual suppressed turnover should be added, on the re-opening of the assessment proceedings and no additions for probable omissions and suppressions could be made. Both the said decisions relate to suppressions that are detected on the inspection of the business premises of the assessee with reference to the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The materials detected on such inspection is presumed to be the only suppressions that were perpetrated by the assessee in a particular year, especially when such inspection was subsequent to the assessment year.

¶24

However, the facts of the instant cases are clearly distinguishable. These were cases in which the suppression from the purchaser was detected after the assessment year on a verification of the purchaser's books of accounts and not that of the assessee herein. On an inspection of the purchaser's books of accounts and premises, the total purchases effected by the assessee was detected. True, this was after the assessment year. But, that cannot lead to a definite conclusion that those are the only suppressions,

¶25

RP.No.985/2012 in O.T.Rev.56/2012 & RP.No.986/2012 in O.T.Rev.55/2012 &

¶26

since the assessee could have purchased from other sources too. The assessee asserts that purchases were made only from one source. We cannot make any such assumptions, since, as noticed in the order under review, there was a definite pattern of suppression indicated. This ground also, according to us would not entitle the assessee to seek for review of the order under Section 63(8) of the KVAT Act.

¶27

The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed, with no

¶28

order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶33

Vku/-

¶34

true copy -

Reji Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji Jose 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Mrs.Lilly Stellal

Ajith Kumar Vs Ravindran

Kadungon Abdulkhader Vs Kodiyil Naseema

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Southern Ispat Limited

M.M.Aliyar Vs Benny

Stephen Abraham Vs Government of Kerala and Another