Dismissed

M/S.Kasmisons Builders Pvt.Ltd v. the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

Kerala HC31 May 2016WA/689/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the denial of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme 2013 due to delayed payment of the second instalment.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order upholding denial of scheme benefit as correct.

M/S.Kasmisons Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs the Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WA.No. 689 of 2016 IN WP(C).1093/2016

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1093/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-02-2016

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

M/S.KASMISONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD KASMISONS ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 031. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶11

SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶14

SERVICE TAX DIVISION

¶15

CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KOCHI-17.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX 'E' RANGE, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KOCHI-17.

¶17

R1, 2 BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH JACOB KOSHY, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE R BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC, CB EX

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶20

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

¶21

Writ Appeal No.689 of 2016

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Antony Dominic, J.

¶25

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C)1093/16

¶26

who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the suit.

¶27

We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

In the writ petition, the challenge was against Ext.P6 order

¶29

whereby the appellant was informed that, on account of the delayed payment of the amount under the Voluntary Compliance

¶30

Encouragement Scheme, 2013, they would be denied the benefit of the said Scheme.

¶31

On facts, we notice that the appellant had applied for the benefit of the Scheme 2013 for the period April 2008 to December 2012. In terms of the Scheme, 50% of the amount due was paid by

¶32

Writ Appeal No.689 of 2016

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

the appellant by Challan dated 30.12.2013. The balance amount of 50% together with interest thereon was remitted by the appellant only on 6.1.2015. As per the Scheme, the appellant should have paid the balance payment along with interest on or before 31.12.2014. On account of the delay in remittance of the balance 50% along with interest, Ext.P6 was issued informing that the benefit of the Scheme would be denied to the appellant. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge held that the provisions of the Scheme required the appellant to remit the balance 50% with interest on or before 31.12.2014 and that having not done so, Ext.P6 was unassailable. It is this finding of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned before us.

¶35

Having heard the counsel for both sides, we are of the view that the case of the appellant, has to be decided in the context of Clause 107 and 108 of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013. Reading of the aforesaid provisions

¶36

Writ Appeal No.689 of 2016

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

would amply make it clear that the second instalment of 50% together with interest that was due from the appellant ought to have been paid by him on or before 31.12.2014 and that as a result of his failure to comply with the said requirement, the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of the scheme.

¶39

In that view, we fully concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.

¶40

SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶41

SD/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶42

jes

M/S.Kasmisons Builders Pvt.Ltd v. the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kasmisons Builders Pvt.Ltd v. the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hotel Surya Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India Vs K.Parasurama Iyer

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

M/S.Sadiq Brothers Marine Works, Kochi. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin.

The Manager Vs v.H.Saritha

Maxwell Electric Corporation Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt)