Disposed

Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v. M/S.Sivasakthi Engineering & Fabricators

Kerala HC4 Jul 2017WA/715/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the liability to pay VAT on the freight component of electric posts supplied by the respondent to KSEB. Since the substantive question of liability is pending before a Division Bench as OTA No.6 of 2017, the court disposed of the appeal by directing parties to maintain status-quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to maintain status-quo: respondent cannot claim refund if tax paid; State cannot enforce demand if unpaid, until the Division Bench decides OTA No.6 of 2017.

Kerala State Electricity Board Limited Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶7

WA.No. 715 of 2017 () IN WP(C).40289/2016

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)40289/2016 DATED 23-01-2017

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

3. CHIEF ENGINEER (SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, KSEB

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶15

M/S.SIVASAKTHI ENGINEERING & FABRICATORS POOLAMPARA, WALAYAR P.O, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.E. SUBRAMANIAN.

¶16

R BY SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sou.

¶19

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &

¶20

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

¶21

W.A. No. 715 of 2017

¶22

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2017

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶25

We heard the matter and with the consent of counsel on both sides, we dispose of this matter at this stage itself. The question indirectly involved in the present appeal is whether the appellants are liable to pay Value Added Tax (VAT) on freight component of deliveries of electric posts as made by the respondent to it. It is not in dispute that under an agreement as between the respondent and the Board, the respondent manufactured and supplied electric posts to the Board. When the assessment of VAT liability was taken up by the local taxing authorities, the respondent was found liable to include the freight component in the sale price and then account for VAT on the said freight component. The respondent objected and went to the tribunal. Tribunal also held against the respondent. There were several other similar cases involving different dealers. They sought for a clarification. The clarification given by the authorities was that freight component did attract Value Added Tax. This was squarely against the stand taken by the

¶26

¶27

W.A.715/17

¶28

Board. Accordingly, the Board has preferred statutory appeal in terms of Section 62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, which is pending as OTA. No.6 of 2017 before a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, whether there is liability or not is a question which is pending before this Court. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances noted above, it would be fair that the parties maintain status-quo in the sense that if the respondent has paid the amount to the State, it would not obviously seek refund or reimbursement thereof from the Board till the matter pending before the Division Bench is disposed of. On the other hand, if the respondent has not paid the assured amount in relation to tax on freight, then the State would not enforce the demand note in respect of the said liability during the pendency of the matter before the Division Bench. Once the Division Bench decides the matter one way or other way, the parties would have a remedy accordingly.

¶29

With the above observation and direction the writ appeal itself stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶31

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge

¶32

sou.4/7.

Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v. M/S.Sivasakthi Engineering & Fabricators

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v. M/S.Sivasakthi Engineering & Fabricators

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

Varsha Velayudhan Vs the Deputy Secretary (Exam)

State of Kerala Vs Sreejith.S

P.Jayaram Parameswaran Vs P.Ajikumar

The Padiotchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs T.v.Kunhikannan

Aji Mathew Vs Teh Federal Bank Ltd.

Aluva Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala