The High Court of Kerala dismissed a tax revision seeking interference with a Tribunal order. The Tribunal had reduced an addition to sales turnover, holding the Transaction was already accounted for and penalty issues were separate from assessment.
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 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
OT.Rev.No. 186 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 77/2014 of KVAT/AIT &STA TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, KOZHIKODE DATED 21-04-2015
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE :
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
C. H. SUDHEESH TIMBER DEALER, AZHIYOOR, VATAKARA KOZHIKODE-673 309.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ARUN SHANKAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.MADHAVANUNNI
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OTREV.186/15
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY the COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, VATAKARA DATED 06.03.2012.
ANNEXURE B : COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.07.2012 IN VATA NO.451/12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-II), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE C : COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.04.2015 PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg-27/2
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
O.T.Rev.(VAT) No.186 of 2015
.................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016.
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Department of Commercial Taxes, quite in extenso.
2.This revision under Section 63 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 at the instance of the Revenue is against the decision of the appellate Tribunal interfering with the decision of the assessing authority adding two times of the estimated sales turnover, including one time towards probable omission and suppression. Addition by the assessing authority to that extent was done on account of omission to disclose two purchases in the monthly return as well as in the annual return. The Tribunal found that the transaction is already accounted for by the assessee in the books of accounts, and there is no chance for probable omission and suppression. The Tribunal turned down the plea of the assessee that no action could have been taken by imposing any penalty in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sree Krishna Electrical v. State of Tamil Nadu and another [23 VST 249]. The
-2-
OTRev186/15
Tribunal, rightly, held that it is not a case of imposition of penalty but only assessment proceedings and, therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to include such additions. However, the Tribunal taking stock of the entire facts and circumstances, found that one time addition made towards probable omission and suppression would be sufficient and, therefore, out of two times of estimates sales turnover which was added on, one should be reduced. The Tribunal thus directed the assessing authority to delete one time addition made towards probable omission and suppression. Looking into the facts and application of mind by the learned Tribunal on the totality of the materials on record, we do not see that the Tribunal had erroneously decided any question of law or had failed to decide any question of law in favour of the Revenue. This revision petition fails.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
jg-19/2
1 issue framed by the court
whether the Tribunal failed to decide the question of law in favour of the Revenue regarding the addition to turnover
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sree Krishna Electrical v. State of Tamil Nadu and anotherReferred¶30
Sree Krishna Electrical v. State of Tamil Nadu and another [23 VST 249]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Kerala Represented by the Deputy Commissioner(Law) Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam
C.H.Sudheesh
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
