Allowed

Aysha Bushra v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jun 2018OT.Rev/81/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court allowed a VAT revision petition, setting aside an order where the First Appellate Authority fixed profit at 9.16% for 2009-10 and 2010-11 based on 2008-09 data, despite the assessee offering a valid explanation for sales suppression and declaring losses or lower profits in the challenged years.

What did the court decide?

The O.T Revision was allowed, setting aside the orders of the appellate authority and affirming the assessment returns as filed by the assessee.

Aysha Bushra Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶3

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

OT.Rev.No. 81 of 2015

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 90/2014 of VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PKD DATED 11-09-2014

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶7

AYSHA BUSHRA PROPRIETRIX, M/S.A.P.SOAPS AND COSMETICS, NO.780-A, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678621.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

¶11

R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶12

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2018, ALONG WITH OTRV. NO. 84/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OTRV NO. 81/2015

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶16

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 1ST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD

¶17

ANNEXURE B: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD

¶18

ANNEXURE C: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶19

ANNEXURE D: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ

¶25

¶26

O.T.Rev. Nos.81 of 2015 & 84 of 2015

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2018

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Vinod Chandran, J

¶31

The revision petitioner is the assessee who is aggrieved

¶32

with the order of the Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority.

¶33

The Assessing Officer rejected the returns of the assessee and

¶34

made an assessment allegedly from the records of the assessee itself. A sales suppression was detected. The assessee pointed out

¶35

that the sales suppression could be explained on the basis of the amounts respectively indicated as VAT collected, direct expenses,

¶36

import purchases, less the CST paid on inter-state purchases. A computation is available in both the memorandum of revisions which need not be extracted since it has been accepted by the

¶37

First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate authority hence

¶38

O.T Rev. Nos.81 & 84 of 2015

¶39

::2::

¶40

found clearly that the unaccounted sales taken on the basis of the

¶41

figures available in the books of accounts was explained by the

¶42

assessee. However, the First Appellate Authority directed that the profit be taken as 9.16% for both the years. The question of law arising from the order of the First Appellate Authority as confirmed by the Tribunal is as follows:

¶43

“Whether the First Appellate Authority could have taken the profit available in the year 2008-09 for best judgment assessment of the subsequent two years without any material being recovered as to profit being more than that disclosed in the returns.”

¶44

We see that in both the cases, the assessee had clearly explained the unaccounted sales alleged by the Assessing

¶45

Officer. The First Appellate Authority also was convinced of the explanation offered by the assessee, as to the suppressed turnover

¶46

alleged by the assessing officer. In the year 2009-10 the assessee

¶47

O.T Rev. Nos.81 & 84 of 2015

¶48

::3::

¶49

had declared a loss and in the year 2010-11 a profit of 5.16%. There was nothing available with the Assessing Officer or the First Appellate Authority to fix the profit at 9.16% which was the profit declared by the assessee in the year 2008-09. There was also no disclosure as to the market condition remaining similar in the subsequent years. We are of the opinion that the question

¶50

of law has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against

¶51

the revenue.

¶52

The O.T Revision stands allowed setting aside the

¶53

orders of the appellate authority affirming the return as filed by

¶54

the assessee. No costs.

¶55

Sd/K. Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶56

Sd/Ashok Menon, Judge

¶57

jma

Aysha Bushra v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aysha Bushra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant State Tax Officer Vs M/S Alfa Aluminium

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

P.K.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Mailakkattu Varghese Uthup Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Oriental Commodities

M/S Tnvr Cafe Vs State of Kerala