Allowed

M/S. Hamara Hotels (P) Ltd., v. the Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC20 Mar 2018WA/679/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against an order imposing 20% of the penalty amount on the appellant. The Court observed that when verification via purchase and sales bills reveals suppressed details, using average gross profit for estimation violates the U.K Monu Timbers principle, necessitating a hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. No recovery is to be effected in the meanwhile. Appeal allowed.

M/S. Hamara Hotels (P) Ltd., Vs the Intelligence Officer — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶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 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 679 of 2018 -------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41670/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-02-2018

¶8

APPELLANT /PETITIONER:

¶9

M/S. HAMARA HOTELS (P) LTD., N.H ROAD, NADATHARA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY SYJU JOSE PERINCHERY, MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO. 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR 680 001

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR 680 001

¶14

THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX COMPLEX,NOORANI, PALAKKAD 678 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. SECRETARY

¶15

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MOHAMMED RAFEEQ

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

jma

¶18

K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No. 679 of 2018

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶23

The appellant is aggrieved with Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal directing payment of 20% of the amount imposed as penalty for considering the appeal. The learned Single Judge had found that since 80% has been stayed, there is no reason why there should be interference.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that an inspection was conducted in the business premises and on examination of certain purchase bills and sales bills, an estimation was made as to the Gross Profit. The returns were faulted for having shown only Gross Profit at 75.49% whereas the average taken by the Intelligence

¶25

W.A.No. 679/2018

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

Officer came to 162.43%. It is also submitted that the issue would be covered under 2012 (3) KHC 111 (DB) [U.K Monu Timbers v. State of Kerala] .

¶28

The learned Government Pleader however, submits that U.K Monu Timbers would have no application especially when returns were verified and the Intelligence Officer had found the Gross Profit conceded to be very low. It is also submitted that the entire sale bills were not produced during enquiry and hence there was a penalty imposed which is proper and not covered by the decision of this Court. There is no estimation carried out; is the contention.

¶29

Prima facie we are of the opinion that when

¶30

verification has been made on the basis of purchase bills and sales bills, whatever suppression as detected would only be available for imposition of penalty. When average Gross Profit is taken definitely it leads to an estimation,

¶31

W.A.No. 679/2018

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

which is not permissible as held in U.K Monu Timbers . In such circumstance, we are of the opinion that the appeal is to be heard on merits and in the meanwhile there would be no recovery effected. We set aside the order impugned in the writ petition. We make it clear that the observations made are prima facie and will not govern the final adjudication by the Tribunal.

¶34

Writ appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K. Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶37

Sd/- Ashok Menon, Judge

¶38

jma

M/S. Hamara Hotels (P) Ltd., v. the Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hamara Hotels (P) Ltd., v. the Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veiloor Muslim Puthen Palli Jama Ath Vs the Director General of Police

Rajendran Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Sowparnika Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)

M/S. Evm Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

P.C.Ramakrishnan Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Arjunan P Vs Sub Inspector of Police