Remanded

Royal Trading Company v. the State Tax Officer

Kerala HC9 Apr 2019WP(C)/10917/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the State Tax Officer's brief orders rejecting a rectification application under Section 66 of the Kerala VAT Act for lacking a speaking order. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders under Section 66 of the Kerala VAT Act are set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Royal Trading Company Vs the State Tax Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 10917 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ROYAL TRADING COMPANY

¶8

IRON STEEL AND CEMENT MERCHANT , PALA ROAD, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 662, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER. MR. ANGLO JOHN.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 661

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 661

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

GP. SMT. M.M. JASMINE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).10924/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC Nos.10917 & 10924 of 2019 2

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶21

WP(C).No. 10924 of 2019

¶22

PETITIONER:

¶23

ROYAL TRADING COMPANY

¶24

IRON STEEL AND CEMENT MERCHANT, PALA ROAD, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 662. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. ANGLO JOHN

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER

¶28

OFFICE OF THE STATE TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 661

¶29

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶30

STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 661

¶31

OTHER PRESENT:

¶32

GP. SMT. M.M. JASMINE

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).10917/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WPC Nos.10917 & 10924 of 2019 3

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

[ WP(C) 10917/2019 ,WP(C).10924/2019 ]

¶37

Royal Trading Company is the petitioner in these two writ petitions.

¶38

The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6 orders dated 16.03.2019 respectively passed by the first respondent under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner through Exts.P4 and P5 applied for rectification of errors under Section 66 of the Act. The request for rectification refers to a few legal objections and the consequential effect on a few additions made by the first respondent. The first respondent rejected the request for rectification of order and the order reads thus:

¶39

“The request made by the dealer for rectification of an error apparent on the face of records is found to be not meritorious since not supported with documentary proof is hereby rejected”.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first

¶41

respondent by passing the orders under review defeated the purpose and

¶42

WPC Nos.10917 & 10924 of 2019 4

¶43

object of Section 66. According to him errors which could be corrected at the earliest stage are also allowed to be carried forward and unnecessarily assailed before the appellate authority or higher courts. The petitioner if is given opportunity, the petitioner will explain and thereafter an order in accordance with law could be passed.

¶44

The learned Government Pleader submits that the first respondent had perfectly exercised its discretion and jurisdiction commensurate to the errors pointed out by the petitioner. The legality or otherwise of the order is not dependent on the length of the order. In other words, the first respondent, according to the Government Pleader, did not find an error and therefore did not correct the error. For not correcting the error and refusing the request first respondent need not give reasons.

¶45

I have perused the records, particularly, the request made by the petitioner for rectification of errors. This Court has no difficulty in appreciating the submissions made by the Government Pleader. The merit in these submissions is dependent on the objections raised by a party and how they are dealt with by the authority. The order of the authority ought to reflect how it is considered the errors pointed out. It is sufficient

¶46

WPC Nos.10917 & 10924 of 2019 5

¶47

to hold that the orders now impugned in these two writ petitions suffer

¶48

from too much of brevity and the orders do not attempt to refer to any of the errors pointed out by the petitioner/assessee. To meet the ends of justice and the object of Sec.66, I am satisfied that Exts.P5 and P6 orders made under Section 66 are set aside. The matter remitted to first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶49

The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 22^nd April 2019 with additional reply or documents on which the petitioner intends to support its case and when the petitioner appears, the first respondent gives an opportunity of hearing as well and the first respondent passes an order on or before 15.5.2019.

¶50

The writ petition ordered as indicated above.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

css/

WPC Nos.10917 & 10924 of 2019 6

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10917/2019

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. 32151405791/2014-15 DATED 01.01.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 23.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 07.03.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.321510791/2013-14 DATED 16.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶59

WPC Nos.10917 & 10924 of 2019 7

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10924/2019

¶61

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. 32151405791/20132014 DATED D04/08/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶63

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 24/09/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶64

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶65

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.03.2014 FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2014

¶66

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 07/03/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶67

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 3215105791/2013-14 DATED 16/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶68

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Royal Trading Company v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Trading Company v. the State Tax Officer

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

K.v.Sajithkumar Vs Assistant of Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Shafeeque Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer(Taxation Officer)

Shamsudhen.v Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Thimmappa Bhat a Vs State of Kerala

Crust and Crumb Food Ingredients P Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Royal Trading Company Vs the State Tax Officer