Quashed

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

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016WP(C)/125/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a penalty notice issued by the Commercial Taxes Intelligence Officer. The court held that the notice failed to indicate the computation basis for the proposed tax liability. Purported to quash the notice and direct the third respondent to inform the petitioner of the calculation basis and hear objections before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed with directions to the 3rd respondent to inform the petitioner of the basis of the proposed tax liability within a week and hear the petitioner's objections thereafter be

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 125 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S.PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD. DOOR NO.37/2022, C.D, G & H, SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682 020, REPRESENTED BY IT'S BRANCH COMMERCIAL HEAD MR.ARUN K.R.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD, MATTANCHERRY II AT KARUKUTTY. PIN-683 005

¶12

3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 125 of 2016 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT NO.30431 DT 7-8-2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 67(1) OF THE KVAT ACT 2003 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT 30-11-2015 PROPOSING TO LEVY PENALTY OF RS.2,80,38,324/- (RUPEES TWO CRORES EIGHTY THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR ONLY)

¶21

P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM NO.22 UNDER KVAT RULES DT 11TH SEPTEMBER 2014 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.125 of 2016

¶27

............................................................. Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2 notice issued to the petitioner under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act'), 2003. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that in Ext.P2 notice that was issued to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent has only indicated the proposal of the department to proceed against the petitioner, on the assumption that he had a total turnover of Rs.11,10,42,866/- which was not reflected in his books of accounts. The corresponding tax effect is also seen worked out at Rs.1,40,19,162/-. The tax evasion is also computed at Rs.1,40,19,162/-. In Ext.P2 notice, however, there is no indication of the computation which led to the above figures that were communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore apprehends that the 3^rd respondent will complete the penalty proceedings against the petitioner by adopting the aforementioned figures.

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 125 of 2016

¶31

-2-

¶32

I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶33

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, it is the specific case of the petitioner, as evident from the reply stated to have been filed by him before the 3^rd respondent, that he has not been informed of the basis of the computation in Ext.P2 notice issued to him proposing the imposition of penalty. In my view, a notice that is issued, proposing a penalty under Section 67 of the KVAT Act, must indicate sufficiently clearly, the basis of the proposals contained in the notice, so that, the assessee can have an opportunity to rebut the proposals in the notice and demonstrate that he is not liable to be imposed with the penalty that is proposed. Inasmuch as in Ext.P2 notice, I find that the necessary details are not forthcoming, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶34

i. The 3^rd respondent shall, within a week from today, inform the petitioner of the basis of arriving at the proposed tax liability of Rs.1,40,19,162/-. The 3^rd respondent shall

¶35

-3-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 125 of 2016

¶37

indicate the computation of the total turnover of Rs.11,10,42,866/- and the material on the basis of which he had arrived at such a computation.

¶38

ii. Within two weeks after the date of receipt of the intimation aforesaid from the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner shall submit his objections to the proposal in Ext.P2 notice, if need be by substantiating his objections with the books of accounts maintained by him in the course of business.

¶39

Iii. The 3^rd respondent shall thereafter on receipt of the objections from the petitioner hear the petitioner and then pass orders pursuant to Ext.P2 notice issued to the petitioner.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

mns/06.01.16

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 125 of 2016

¶44

-4-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 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

Sheeja Rani P.G. Vs Mr.Senthil

M S Jayaraj Vs the Bank of India,Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

Reji Joseph Vs the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram

Rosary Hill Ashram Vs the State of Kerala

M/S. Matrix Flavours & Fragrances (India) P. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala