High Court of Kerala dismissed the State's revision against the Kerala VAT Tribunal setting aside a penalty imposed on an assessee for alleged tax evasion, holding the Tribunal's factual findings were not perverse.
Permission for revision refused; penalty imposed in the lower appeal remains set aside by the Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935
OT.Rev.No. 138 of 2013 ()
-------------------------TA(VAT) NO. 78/2013 OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAW, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BOBBY JOHN.
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
M/S.PEEDIAKAL SAW MILL AND TIMBERS, VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA- 686 661.
BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR).
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OT.Rev.No. 138 of 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/01/2012 PASSED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD MATTANCHERRY II, KARUKUTTY. ANNEXURE B TRUE EXTRACT COPIES OF THE DELIVERY NOTE DATED 11/09/2011, BEARING NO.0572780. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 07/11/2012 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 28/05/2013 PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN TA(VAT) NO.78/2013.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
**MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** O.T.(Rev) No.138 of 2013
Dated this the 12th day of March 2014
J U D G M E N T
SHAFFIQUE, J
This revision is filed by the State challenging the order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal Ernakulam in T.A (VAT) No.78/13. The respondent is a dealer who was imposed with a penalty of Rs.63,630/-. He challenged the penalty proceedings by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be dismissed and on further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the lower authorities and penalty was set aside.
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013
2
respect to the goods in question. At the time of inspection, the person, who was in charge of the vehicle, was in possession of the original of the purchase bill and the duplicate of the delivery note. On further verification of the books of accounts, the assessing officer noticed certain difference and modifications in the documents produced. It was observed that there was an attempt to evade tax and hence imposed a penalty being double the amount of tax sought to be evaded.
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013
3
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013
4
a wrong inference while finding that the delivery note as well as the duplicate copy of the purchase bill appears to be not the carbon copy of the documents that accompanied the transport. It is observed that duplicate copy of delivery note is to be retained by the purchasing dealer or the person to whom the goods are delivered for transporting. The triplicate copy shall be retained by the consigning dealer as per KVAT Rules. The original copy of the delivery note is to be produced before the Assessing authority along with the annual return. The Tribunal found that if the triplicate copy with carbon copy is later manipulated, it could easily be detected since the original is furnished to the assessing authority and that the manipulation is not easy when double sided carbon is used.
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013
5
also have been considered by the Tribunal and observed that such a presumption cannot be raised under the factual circumstances.
(sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE)
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013 6
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013 7
O.T(Rev) No.138/2013 8
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAW, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM
M/S.PEEDIAKAL SAW MILL AND TIMBERS, VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA
MANJULA CHELLUR
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
