Dismissed

K.Sameer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016OT.Rev/94/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court in a revenue revision under Section 63 of the Kerala VAT Act dismissed the petition challenging the Tribunal's confirmation of the First Appellate Authority's order. The tax department had levied tax based on unaccounted sales and probable suppression revealed by KVATIS data. The Court held that the disclosure of proceedings was legal given the inconsistency and found no reas

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as the proceedings for suppression of turnover were justified by the inconsistency between KVATIS and annual return data.

K.Sameer Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

O.T.Rev.No. 94 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.(VAT)No.771/2014 of AGRL.I.T.ADDL.BENCH, KOZHIKODE DATED 20.12.2015

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ASSESSEE:

¶8

K.SAMEER

¶9

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PROPRIETOR ZAIN IMPEX, RESIDING AT KARIYIL HOUSE, MANANCHERY PO, CHAKKARAKKAL, KANNUR 670 613.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/REVENUE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶14

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O.T.Rev.No. 94 of 2016

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32120702908/2010-11 DATED 10.5.2013.

¶19

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL.

¶20

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2014 IN KVATA NO.695/13.

¶21

ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 5.11.14.

¶22

ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNS FILED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.11.2010 TO 30.11.2010.

¶23

ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN.

¶24

ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPY SALES INVOICE FOR THE RETURN MONTH OF NOVEMBER.

¶25

ANNEXURE H: TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNS FOR THE PERIOD 1.12.2010 TO 31.12.2010.

¶26

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 17.1.2011.

¶27

ANNEXURE J: TRUE COPY OF THE SALES INVOICES MISTAKENLY UPDATED FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME REVEALS THE SALES OF NOVEMBER 2010.

¶28

ANNEXURE K: TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUAL SALES STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2010.

¶29

ANNEXURE L: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT.

¶30

ANNEXURE M: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN TA(VAT)NO.771/14 DATED 20-12-2015.

¶31

// TRUE COPY //

¶32

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶33

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶34

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

¶35

O.T.Rev.No.94 of 2016

¶36

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2016

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Antony Dominic, J.

¶39

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶40

This revision is filed under Section 63 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 calling in question the order passed by the Kerala

¶41

Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode in T.A.(VAT) No.771/14. By the said order, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected whereby the First Appellate Authority's order was confirmed.

¶42

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the scrutiny of the annual return for the assessment year 2010-2011 against the data available in the KVATIS revealed unaccounted sales to the tune of Rs.32,72,504/-. This was treated as unaccounted sales with a further addition of an equal amount towards probable omission and suppression and on that basis, tax was levied. The First Appellate Authority, by sustaining the order of assessment, reduced the addition

¶43

O.T.Rev.No.94 of 2016

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

towards the suppressed turnover to 50%. It was this order which was confirmed by the Tribunal.

¶46

According to the appellant, the inconsistency has occurred in Bills at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 on account of technical reasons such as rounding of the bill amounts and in certain cases bill amounts were bifurcated depending upon the differences in the rate of tax. It was also contended that Sl.Nos.6 to 56 were for the period of December and that the mismatching was found on account of a mistake in uploading the sales list into the system. We find that this contention was concurrently rejected by the authorities. Apart from these factual findings it cannot be upset in a revisional jurisdiction. We also find that even so far the appellant has not opted for filing revised returns.

¶47

In such a situation, in view of the inconsistency between the KVATIS and the annual return, if proceedings for the

¶48

suppression of the turn over have initiated, no illegality can be

¶49

O.T.Rev.No.94 of 2016

¶50

: 3 :

¶51

attributed to the authorities under the Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶52

Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶53

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶56

jes

K.Sameer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sameer v. 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S.Coconut Palm Beach Garden

M/S.Transworld Hire Purchase India Ltd. Vs the Settlement Commission

State of Kerala Vs K.Pushpadas

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur Vs M/S.Kallada Wine, Thrissur

V.P.Prabhakaran Kartha Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Gopinadhan Nair P.S