Dismissed

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016OT.Rev/144/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Bench of Ernakulam, allowed the revision petition by the appellant, M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., dismissing it and upholding the Appellate Tribunal's decision. The court held that burden of proof under Section 6A was not discharged as evidence of despatch was not produced.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Finding of fact regarding non-production of evidence of despatch of goods along with F forms is upheld.

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937

¶5

OT.Rev.No. 144 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA(VAT) 420/2014 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 18-05-2015

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT:

¶8

M/S.PANASONIC INDIA PVT.LTD DOOR NO. 37/2022, C, D G & H, SUBASH CHANDR BOSE ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR KADAVANTHARA, CCHIN - 682 020.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶13

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶15

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.T.Rev.No.144 of 2015

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2015

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

¶20

The matter relates to rejection of stock transfer claimed on the basis of F forms for the assessment year 2008-2009. The authority at the first instance categorically held on materials that the assessee had filed only F forms and that in the absence of evidence to prove transfer of goods through the border check post, such as transport copy of delivery notes/L.R etc., exemption cannot be allowed. The finding of fact by that authority that the assessee had not produced any evidence to prove the transfer of goods on the basis of the F form declarations, was not at all impeached before the higher appellate and revisional authorities. Even before the Appellate Tribunal, there was no material available to hold that the assessee had sought the exemption of an interstate stock transfer on the basis of evidence of having

¶21

O.T.Rev.144/15

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

despatched such goods on the basis of F form declarations.

¶24

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that if the assessing authority had doubted the genuineness of the F forms, it was open to that authority to conduct such enquiry as was deemed fit.

¶25

We do not see that either the assessing authority or any appellate or revisional authority had doubted the genuineness of F forms at any point of time. The issue is not on the genuineness or misuse of F forms. It is pointedly on the question as to whether the burden of proof in terms of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for short) was discharged in terms of sub-section 1 thereof by establishing the conjoint requirements, that is to say, the goods being covered by an F form and the assessee producing along with the F form, the evidence of despatch of such goods. The statutory compulsion under sub-section 1 of Section 6A of the Act on the assessing authority is that if such F form and evidence of despatch of goods are not furnished, the assessing authority will

¶26

O.T.Rev.144/15

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

have no other go, but to deal the transit as a sale. That would be the result of the deeming provision of the last limb of sub-section 1 of Section 6A of the Act. Under such circumstances, on the basis of the materials and facts, we are unable to hold that the Appellate Tribunal had decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The revision petition, therefore, fails.

¶29

In the result, the revision is dismissed.

¶30

sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge

¶31

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶34

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd v. the State of Kerala

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

Nisheema Anulal Vs Kumari Kuriakose

Global United Shipping India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division

Lfa, Tdb Audit, Tvm Vs Secretary, Tdb

M/S. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

M/S Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Sankara Narayanan Vs Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur