Dismissed

Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2015OT.Rev/39/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition where the petitioner challenged a penalty order upheld by the Tribunal under Section 67 of the Kerala VAT Act. The Court held the petitioner's contention regarding the tax rate was erroneous because the compounding application submitted was for 2008-09, whereas the penalty related to 2007-08, making the cited precedent irrelevant.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed as there was no substance in the petitioner's contention regarding the applicable tax rate.

Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

OT.Rev.No. 39 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.(VAT)NO.970/2012 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. DATED 29-10-2014

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE & TOURISM (P) LTD. PULINKUDY, MULOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, FEDERICK THOMAS.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.GEORGEKUTTY SRI.AJI V.DEV

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN

¶13

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OT.Rev.No. 39 of 2015

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 1.12.2008.

¶18

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE KTL ACT DATED 14.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I.B) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPOUNDING THE OFFENCE DATED 30.9.2009.

¶20

ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 30.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I.B) TVM.

¶21

ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN KERALA CURRY HOUSE CASE REPORTED IN 36 VST 126.

¶22

ANNEXURE F: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPOUNDING UNDER SECTION 8(C) FOR 2007-08 SHOWING THE DETAILS OF TAX PAYMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

ANNEXURE G: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

ANNEXURE H: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER IN C15461/08 DATED 29.1.2009 SHOWING THE RATE OF TAX OF COOKED FOOD DEALERS FOR PENALTY PURPOSE.

¶25

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN T.A.(VAT)NO.970/2012 DATED 29.10.2014.

¶26

// TRUE COPY //

¶27

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶28

ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.

¶29

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

¶30

O.T.Rev.No.39 of 2015

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2015

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Antony Dominic, J.

¶35

In this revision, the petitioner is impugning the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.(VAT)No.970/2012 where the penalty levied

¶36

under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was upheld by the Tribunal.

¶37

Before us the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner was only that the rate of tax applicable was only 0.5% and that the authorities under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act turned down his contention to that effect. This contention is raised relying on the judgment of this Court in Sales Tax Officer, Commercial Taxes, 2nd Circle, Kozhikode v. Kerala Curry House

¶38

(2010) 36 VST, 126.

¶39

The petitioner claims that he has opted to pay tax at compounded rates for the year 2007-2008 and that the applicable rate of tax was 0.5%. However, on a reading of the order passed by

¶40

the Tribunal itself shows that the compounding application submitted pertains to the year 2008-2009 and not to 2007-2008 in

¶41

O.T.Rev.No.39 of 2015

¶42

:: 2 ::

¶43

relation to which penalty was levied. If that be so, the very basis of contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is absolutely

¶44

erroneous and the judgment relied on also has no relevance.

¶45

Resultantly we do not find any substance in the revision. O.T.Revision is dismissed.