Disposed

P.N.Suresh v. Authority for Clarification

Kerala HC29 Jun 2017OT.Appeal/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Other Tax Appeal No. 2 of 2017 challenged a commercial tax clarification regarding compounding opt-in dealers. The bench disposed of the appeal without final merits, directing the authority to decide the pending clarification application (Annexure E) expeditiously within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order directed the first respondent to pass orders on the pending application Annexure E within six weeks.

P.N.Suresh Vs Authority for Clarification — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶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

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/8TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶6

OT.Appeal.No. 2 of 2017 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C3 22771/2014/CT of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM DATED 11-11-2015

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

P.N.SURESH PROP: PALAKKOTTU BUILDERS, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY P.O., KOLLAM.690 518.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN SMT.V.P.SEENA DEVI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION COMMISSIONERATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 002.

¶13

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM.691 002.

¶14

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM AT KOTTARAKKARA.691 002.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)

¶16

COMMERCIAL TAXES, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 002.

¶17

R BY SRI MUHAMMED RAFIQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS OTHER TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OT.Appeal.No. 2 of 2017 ()

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION IN FORM IE DATED 29.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR 2014-15 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO.PB 002A/14-15 DATED 30.04.2014 WITH M/S. ZAKEER HUSSAIN AND MRS. NASEELA, KAYAMKULAM FOR RS.67,70,000/-.

¶26

ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.PB 004/2014-15 DATED 17.12.2014 WITH MR. MADHUBALAN C.J KARUNAGAPALLY FOR RS.15,30,000/-.

¶27

ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO.24 FILED BY APPELLANT ON 22.05.2015.

¶28

ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CR 57/2014 -15 DATED 31.03.2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

ANNEXURE G : TRUE COPY OF THE QUARTERLY RETURN FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2015 TO 31.03.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

ANNEXURE H : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 22.05.2015 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32021697903/2014-15 DATED 29.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

ANNEXURE J : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32021697903/2014-15 (RECTIFIED) DATED 17.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

ANNEXURE K : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ORDER NO.C3.22771/14/CT DATED 11.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------Other Tax Appeal No. 2 of 2017 ( ) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2017.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Antony Dominic,J.

¶41

In this appeal, the challenge is against Annexure K clarification issued by the authority in an application for clarification preferred under Section 94 of the KVAT Act. By this proceeding, the authorities has clarified that in respect of the dealer who has opted for compounding, once suppression of turnover is detected, the rate of tax that would be applicable is not that which is prescribed for compounding, but that which is prescribed for regular assessment. The grievance of the appellant is that the said clarification was relied on against him at a time when an application for clarification filed by him under Section 94 of the KVAT Act is pending consideration of the authority for clarification, a copy of which is produced as Annexure E.

¶42

According to us, if the appellant has a contention that the

¶43

rate of tax that is applicable is not as clarified in Annexure K, the

¶44

O.T.A. No. 2/2017 -2-

¶45

proper course which should have been pursued by the appellant was to seek orders on Annexure E clarification filed by him.

¶46

In such circumstances, we dispose of this appeal without going into the merits of the contentions raised and at the same time directing the first respondent to pass orders on Annexur E, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks on the production of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶48

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶49

¶50

O.T.A. No. 2/2017 -3-

P.N.Suresh v. Authority for Clarification

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Suresh v. Authority for Clarification

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

Shanmughan Vs District Collector

M/S. Surya Catering Services Vs Assistant Commissioner

Saramma Binu Vs B.Chandra Bose

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S. Sopariwala Exports

Rajendran P.K Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Ibrahimkutty Vs the District Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram