Allowed

M/S. Johnson Lift Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst.Commissioner (Audit Assessment)

Kerala HC1 Aug 2014WP(C)/11873/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the assessment order (Ext.P7) regarding the exigibility of tax on transaction in lifts for the year 2005-2006. The Court directed the assessing authority to redo the assessment based on the larger Bench decision classifying lift installation as a works contract.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order Ext.P7 set aside; assessing authority directed to redo assessment based on larger Bench decision.

M/S. Johnson Lift Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst.Commissioner (Audit Assessment) — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/10TH SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 11873 of 2008 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S. JOHNSON LIFTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 38/352, KARITHALA ROAD, NEAR CHOICE TOWERS MANORAMA JUNCTION, COCHIN-682 016, REP. BY SH.G.BALAKRISHNAN, HEAD FINANCE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSMT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

3. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MHU COMPLEX, 692 ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM CHENNAI-600 035.

¶13

R1-R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SMT SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN BY NAGARESH, ASST.SOLICITOR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 11873 of 2008

¶16

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	:	JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6585/99 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P2	:	ORDER IN W.P(C).NO.232/2005 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P3	:	ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 30.11.2006 FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004
EXHIBIT P4	:	ORDER DTD 7^thMARCH 2007 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P5	:	NOTICE DTD 17.03.2008 ISSUED BY 1^stRESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	:	OBJECTION DTD 25.03.2008 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	:	ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 28.03.2008
EXHIBIT P8	:	SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 29.10.2007 ISSUED BY the 3^rdRESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

True Copy /

P.A to Judge

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

W.P(C).No.11873 of 2008

¶25

----------------------------------------

¶26

Dated this the 01^st day of August, 2014

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7, assessment order passed against the petitioner for the year, 2005-2006. One of the issues dealt with in the assessment order was with respect to the exigibility of tax on the transaction in lifts. Earlier, as per the Honourable Supreme Court decision; State of Andra Pradesh Vs. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd . reported in (2005(3) SCC 389), the same was to be considered as a sale of goods. However, the said decision was referred to a larger Bench and as per the reported decision in Kone Elevators (India) Private Ltd . Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2010(14) SCC 788), installation of lifts has been held to be works contract. At the time of admission, this Court granted an interim order with respect to the demand raised on the assessment on the

¶29

W.P(C).No.11873 of 2008

¶30

¶31

sale of lifts and had left liberty to the petitioner to challenge the other aspects in a properly instituted statutory appeal. For reason of the latter decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the assessment made in Ext.P7, with respect to the transaction in lifts for the subject year is set aside. The assessing authority is directed to redo such assessment on the basis of the inter Supreme Court decision of the larger Bench, aforecited.

¶32

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶33

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge

¶34

Sbna

M/S. Johnson Lift Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst.Commissioner (Audit Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Johnson Lift Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst.Commissioner (Audit Assessment)

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

C.R.Vikraman Vs Sri.C.K.Ashokan,Secretary, Regional Transport Authority ,Thrissur

Bismi Hussain Vs Authorised Officer

M.P.Madhavi Vs the Kerala State Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Jacob T.Koshy Vaidhyan Vs the District Collector

T.R Vinayakumar Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Shyam K.L. Vs the Authorised Officer