Dismissed

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016OT.Rev/216/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a tax revision against concurrent decisions refusing an appeal for interstate sales due to non-production of C-Forms. The court refused to grant further time for C-Forms. However, allowed a payment plan to stay recovery action pending full settlement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of distrees action stayed if outstanding dues including interest and accruals are paid in three equal monthly installments by 2016; otherwise benefit recalled.

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶6

OT.Rev.No. 216 of 2015 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A. (VAT)84/2015 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 30-07-2015.

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE :

¶9

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

¶10

M/S. INDUSTRIAL SPECIALITY CHEMICALS, OLLUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATES, OLLUR TRICHUR - 680 306.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/REVENUE :

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶16

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

OT.Rev.No. 216 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE A- TRIBUNAL ORDER IN T.A.(VAT)84/15 DATE 30.07.2015 PASSED BY THE KVAT TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 23.07.2014 IN KVATA216/13 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, THRICHUR.

¶23

ANNEXURE C- COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.02.2013 UNDER CST PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY.

¶24

ANNEXURE D : COPY OF THE C'FORM DECLARATIONS ISSUED BY M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO CO., PONDICHERY.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶30

O.T.R. (VAT) No.216 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶34

This revision under Section 63 of the Kerala

¶35

Value Added Tax Act is against concurrent decisions solely on the issue of non supported claim regarding interstate sales as to the extent C-Forms were not produced. The litigation graph of the present proceedings shows that in spite of earlier order of remand at the hands of the appellate authority, the further opportunity given was also not utilised. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accept the very persuasive submissions on behalf of the revision petitioner made based on proviso to Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (R&T) Rules 1957, a provision which enables the prescribed authority to allow declarations or certificates to be furnished within such further time as may be permitted, in cases where that authority is satisfied that the person concerned was

¶36

O.T.R. (VAT) No.216 of 2015 2

¶37

prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the prescribed time. The authorities below have, in this round, concurrently, held that no further opportunity could be given. In fact, the appellate tribunal also noted that there was no material forthcoming to justify the request for consideration of any C-Forms in addition to what was originally reckoned by the statutory authorities. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to hold that the appellate tribunal had failed to decide or has erroneously decided any question of law arising for decision in this case. This revision therefore fails.

¶38

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that under the present financial stringency of the revision petitioner, a lenient view may be taken. Normally, in deciding a revision of this nature, it would not be permissible to overstep the jurisdiction and pass orders which would result in modification of the order of the tribunal. Bearing that in mind, we are of the view that the recovering authority will hold back any

¶39

O.T.R. (VAT) No.216 of 2015 3

¶40

distress action if the entire outstanding including statutory interest and accruals are paid off in three equal monthly instalments payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from January, 2016. If there is failure to pay off any of those instalments, the benefit of this part of the order will stand automatically re-called and recovery proceedings would be enforced in one go. Subject to that, the revision is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶45

/ True Copy /

¶46

NS/11/01/2016

¶47

P.A. To Judge

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals 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

Travancore Devaswom Board by Its Executive Engineer, Trivandrum Vs the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Trivandrum

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

Professor a.K.Somasekharan Nair Vs Secretary

Padmaja B Vs Antony Chacko

Dr.George Jacob Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs D.Bhuvanedran