Dismissed

M/S.Maliyakkal Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2018OT.Rev/187/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court rejected the revision petition. Ruled that Section 42(2) mandates filing a revised return with audit certificate and payment of tax without prior permission. Since no revised return was filed here, the Tribunal's addition was sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Revision Petition rejected; plea for permission to file revised return without application allowed but benefits removed due to failure to file return; no order as to costs.

M/S.Maliyakkal Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs State of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

OT.Rev.No. 187 of 2015

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA (VAT) 221/2014 of KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PKD DATED 16-01-2015

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE :

¶9

M/S.MALIYAKKAL ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD, NIDA,MENONPARA ROAD,KANJIKODE,PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY M.ABDULLAKUTTY,MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/REVENUE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

BY SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O.T.REV.187/2015

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

REVISION PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD.

¶19

ANNEXURE-D : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD IN TA (VAT) NO.221/2014.

//TRUE COPY//

PS TO JUDGE.

jg-29/6

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.

¶24

O.T.Rev.No.187 of 2015

¶25

------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2018

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶28

The assessee is in revision against the order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. The questions of law as framed by the assessee are as follows:-

¶29

“(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the appellate Tribunal erred in justifying the addition on account of alleged difference in purchase turnover as per audit report and annual return?

¶30

(b) Has not the appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the assessment, when the petitioner on its own has prayed for revision of return upon finalisation of audit as provided under Section 42(2) of the Act?

¶31

(c) Has not the appellate Tribunal erred in finding that while seeking permission to revise return, the assessee is to explain the difference through a reconciliation statement, when there is no such stipulation in the KVAT Act/Rules?”

¶32

The assessee is engaged in manufacture and

¶33

O.T.Rev.187/15

¶34

-2-

¶35

sale of wheat products. An assessment was made on best judgment as per Annexure-A for the assessment year 2011-12. Additions were made on account of detention of a vehicle. Purchases revealed from the KVATIS not disclosed in the accounts was found to have been not reflected in the annual returns too on verification as against the audit report. There was also an addition made with respect to direct expenses.

¶36

The assessee challenged the addition made on account of enhanced turnover seen from the audit report as also on account of direct expenses. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal on both counts. The State was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed deletion of direct expenses. The only issue arising is the difference seen in the audit report from the turnover as declared in the annual returns. The annual return showed a turnover of Rs.4,60,05,561/-. The audit report showed a purchase turnover of Rs.5,11,15,462/-. There was a difference of Rs.51,09,900/-. The same was added to the turnover along with 20% of the sum towards direct expenses and gross profit. This is the only challenge raised in the

O.T.Rev.187/15

-3-

revision before us.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner had submitted application at Annexure-C for revision of returns and the Commercial Taxes Department did not respond to it. The learned Senior Government Pleader points out that there is no specific indication of the discrepancy or the reason behind the claim for a revision of return as seen from Annexure-C. It is also pointed out that no such application need be filed for reason of the provision under Section 42(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

¶41

We notice Section 42(2), which enables a dealer who detects any omission or mistake in the annual return with reference to the audited figures, to file a revised annual return rectifying the mistake or omission along with the audit certificate. In fact, the same is not an enabling provision, but mandates a revision to be filed along with the audit certificate. A revised return has to be filed along with audit certificate along with proof of payment of tax and interest due thereon. Revision petitioner cannot on

¶42

O.T.Rev.187/15

¶43

-4-

¶44

the basis of Annexure-C application, send through e- mail, find fault with the Department for not responding to it.

¶45

Sub-Section (2) of Section 42 is a clear mandate on the dealer and there is absolutely no requirement for an application or permission to file a revised return. If such a revised return is filed along with the audit certificate, the Department is obliged to take into account such revised return and the figures shown therein, if tax and interest has also been paid as provided under the aforesaid provision.

¶46

On the first question of law, we find that the same is only on facts, since there is nothing indicated as to the assessee having filed a revised return along with the audit certificate, and hence the addition is sustainable. On the second question, we have already found that there is no requirement for a permission and there is a mandate on the dealer under Section 42(2). Hence, we answer the second question of law against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The third question refers to the requirement of a reconciliation statement, which the Tribunal found, on the State

¶47

O.T.Rev.187/15

¶48

-5-

¶49

raising such a contention at the time of hearing. We do not see any requirement for such a reconciliation statement to be filed, as per the statute, when there is a revised return filed as per Section 42(2) along with tax and interest payment. The third question though answered in favour of the assessee does not inure to the benefit of the revision petitioner (assessee) for reason of the answer rendered in the question regarding the revision of returns. The Revision Petition stands rejected. No order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶52

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶53

M/S.Maliyakkal Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Maliyakkal Roller Flour Mills (P) 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

Mailakkattu Varghese Uthup Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Aysha Bushra Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Oriental Commodities

Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd. Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ktm

Kerala State Bevearages Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Cream Packs(P)Ltd Vs State of Kerala