Disposed

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/23046/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for clarification regarding tax classification of mouthwash under Section 94 of the Kerala VAT Act. The court fixed a two-month timeline for the competent authority to decide maintainability and grant clarification, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is afforded.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to place the application before the competent authority to consider maintainability and grant clarification within two months, ensuring an opportunity of hearing.

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23046 of 2013 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD 42/2159E, 2ND FLOOR, CB TOWERS K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD KOCHI-18 REPRESENTED BY MR.SRIKANTH ANAVATTI POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. RESIDING AT 42/819 C MADHUKESHWARA KRAPA DR. O.K. MADHAVI AMMA ROAD AYYAPPANKAVU, COCHIN 682 018.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-650002.

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-24.

¶12

THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-24.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 23046 of 2013 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27-6-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3.
EXHIBIT P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27-6-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAER 2009-10 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3.
EXHIBIT P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27-6-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAER 2010-11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3.
EXHIBIT P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27-6-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAER 2011-12 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3.
EXHIBIT P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27-6-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAER 2012-13 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3.
EXHIBIT P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DT.29-7-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3.
EXHIBIT P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DT.4-9-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1.
EXHIBIT P8	:	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN TOWARDS REMITTANCE OF THE FEE.
EXHIBIT P9	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LITERATURE ( 3 IN NUMBERS()
EXHIBIT P10	:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED RELATING TO 2004 (167) ELT 20.
EXHIBIT P11	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CEGAT, DELHI REPORTED IN 1999(108) ELT 598.
EXHIBIT P12	:	TRUE COPY OF THE 15/2008-09 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE DT.1-1-2009.
EXHIBIT P13	:	TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE RELATING TO THE PRODUCTS.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶22

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶23

WP(C) NO. 23046 OF 2013

¶24

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2013

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner confines its relief to an early consideration of Ext.P7 application purporting to be under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner has sought clarification contending inter alia that the product - mouth wash - is only a medicament.

¶27

The Government Pleader disputes the very maintainability of Ext.P7 application relying on the provisions of Section 94 (4) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is asserted that Ext.P7 application was filed after the proceedings were recorded under the Act (evidenced by Exts. P1 to P5 notices).

¶28

I direct the first respondent to place Ext.P7 application before the competent authority to be dealt with in accordance with law. The question whether such an application is maintainable and whether clarification as sought could be granted shall be considered within two months.

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No. 23046/2013

¶31

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed on Ext.P7 application. There is however no impediment for the third respondent to complete the assessment proceedings in question in the meanwhile.

¶32

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶34

ncd

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

Antony Jose Vs Chief Manager

R.P.Ravindran Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Nava Jyothi Ashram Vs State of Kerala

Sumoni Paul Vs State

P.S.Kurian @ Anujan Anthikayam Vs State of Kerala

Lucy Sebastian Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.