Partly allowed

M/S.Manikkampara Granites Pvt.Ltd., v. the State Tax OFFICER-1

Kerala HC2 Sept 2019WP(C)/20525/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order rejecting a petitioner company request for revising its September 2016 GST return. The court held the decision required objective consideration and fairness, remanding it for fresh disposal by the assessing officer by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P11 set aside; matter restored to first respondent for reconsideration of revision request.

M/S.Manikkampara Granites Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State Tax… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 11TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.20525 OF 2019(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.MANIKKAMPARA GRANITES PVT.LTD., NAYARANGADI,POOMALA.P.O,THRISSUR-680581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOSE.O.A.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-1 STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, WADAKKANCHERY-680582.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR-680004.

¶13

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS,KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC No.20525/2019 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 2nd day of September 2019

¶20

The petitioner challenges the legality of Ext.P11 in the instant

¶21

writ petition. The writ prayer reads as follows:

¶22

(i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quashing Ext.P11 order issued by the Ist respondent;

¶23

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the Ist and 2^nd respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to cure the defects and to revise his returns for September 2016 and allow the petitioner to download the

¶24

(iii) to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem justified in the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶25

and

¶26

(iv) to award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioner;

¶27

Heard Adv.P.N.Damodaran Namboodiri, learned counsel for

¶28

petitioner and Dr.Thushara James, learned Government Pleader.

¶29

The operative portion of Ext.P11 order reads as follows:

¶30

“ORDER No.32081391606/2016-17 DATED 24.6.2019

¶31

For the reasons stated above, the request for return revision filed by Manikkampara Granites PVT.LTD. Poomala for the month of 09/16 is hereby rejected.”

¶32

By just opposing the conclusion recorded in Ext.P11,

¶33

WPC No.20525/2019 3

¶34

Adv.Damodaran Namboodiri invited the attention of this Court to

¶35

the request of petitioner filed for revising the monthly return for the month of September 2016. The submission of the learned counsel is that none of the objections stated by the petitioner has been considered and the order is too precise to raise any other ground against the rejection. Therefore, he prays for setting aside Ext.P11 and to remand the matter to the first respondent for fresh disposal. He refers to and relies upon judgment of this Court dated 21.6.2019 in WPC No.11811 of 2019. This Court, in similar circumstances, taking note of the obligation to give reasons for taking a decision on the request for revision of return, directed re-consideration.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader contends that Ext.P11 will have to be read with its entirety if this document is read in that fashion. It can be appreciated that the request is fairly adverted to and the assessing officer, since is not in agreement with any of the objections raised by the petitioner/assessee, passed the order impugned in Ext.P11. The objection of Government Pleader is taken note of and the record is carefully perused.

¶37

After perusing the record, this Court is of the view that

¶38

WPC No.20525/2019 4

¶39

objective consideration of request of petitioner would have satisfied

¶40

the first requirement of fairness in procedure and consideration while passing the order impugned in the writ petition.

¶41

For the reasons recorded in judgment in WPC No.11811 of 2019, I am satisfied the order in Ext.P11 could be set aside. Accordingly, the order is set aside and restored to file for reconsideration by the first respondent.

¶42

The petitioner appears on 26.9.2019 at 11 a.m. accompanied by a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. The first respondent examines the request of the petitioner for revision made through Ext.P11, considers all the points stated in this behalf and passes an order. The entire exercise is completed on or before 15.10.2019.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

WPC No.20525/2019 5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER KVAT ACT TIN NO.32081391606 DATED 25.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY RETURN DATED 26.10.2016 FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2016 FILED BYTHE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF SALE IN TRANSIT PURCHASE BEARING INVOICE NO 1160003174 DATED 26.O9.2016 FROM M/S.JCB INDIA LIMITED,PUNE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCAL PURCHASE INVOICE NO.486 DATED 30.09.2016 FROM M/S.PSN AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD,PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P4 A	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCAL PURCHASE INVOICE NO.487 DATED 30.09.2016 FROM M/S.PSN AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD.,PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REVISE THE RETURN DATED 15.02.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REVISE THE RETURN DATED 03.05.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 29.05.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.04.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32081391606/2016-

¶50

WPC No.20525/2019 6

¶51

17 DATED 24.06.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶52

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.14/2017 DATED 21.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT.

M/S.Manikkampara Granites Pvt.Ltd., v. the State Tax OFFICER-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Manikkampara Granites Pvt.Ltd., v. the State Tax OFFICER-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeev.O.J. Vs the District Collector

M/S.Tata Communications Limited Vs State of Kerala

C.Anwar Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

E.R.Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Rajappa Kaimal Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Seethu Granites Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer