Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Pvs Memorial Hospital Limited

Kerala HC15 Jun 2020OP (TAX)/12/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 17A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. However, it dismissed the Revenue's petitions for lack of jurisdiction to either reduce or enhance the penalty fixed by two lower authorities for failure to submit returns, as the amount imposed was within the statutory discretion.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of Kerala Vs Pvs Memorial Hospital Limited — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶8

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶9

OP (TAX).No.8 OF 2019

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 77/2014 DATED 31-08-2017 OF KERALA AGRL.INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,ERNAKULAM

¶11

PETITIONER:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶15

RESPONDENT:

¶16

M/S.PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD. KALOOR,KOCHI-682017.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI MILLU DANDAPANI

¶18

THIS OP TAX HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.06.2020, ALONG WITH OP (TAX).11/2019, OP (TAX).12/2019, OP (TAX).13/2019, OP (TAX).16/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶26

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶27

OP (TAX).No.11 OF 2019

¶28

AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 40/2015 DATED 31-08-2017 OF KERALA AGRL.INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,ERNAKULAM

¶29

PETITIONER:

¶30

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶32

RESPONDENT:

¶33

M/S. PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD. KALOOR, KOCHI - 682017.

¶34

BY ADV. SRI MILLU DANDAPANI

¶35

THIS OP TAX HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.06.2020, ALONG WITH OP (TAX).8/2019, OP(TAX).12/2019, OP (TAX).13/2019 & OP (TAX).16/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶37

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶41

¶42

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶43

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶44

OP (TAX).No.12 OF 2019

¶45

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 39/2015 DATED 31-08-2017 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH

¶46

PETITIONER:

¶47

STATE OF KERALA

¶48

REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶49

BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶50

RESPONDENT:

¶51

PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LIMITED KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶52

BY ADV. SRI MILLU DANDAPANI

¶53

THIS OP TAX HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.06.2020, ALONG WITH OP (TAX).8/2019, OP (TAX).11/2019, OP (TAX).13/2019, OP (TAX).16/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶55

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶59

¶60

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶61

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶62

OP (TAX).No.13 OF 2019

¶63

AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 41/2015 DATED 31-08-2017 OF KERALA AGRL.INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,ERNAKULAM

¶64

PETITIONER:

¶65

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶66

BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶67

RESPONDENT:

¶68

M/S.PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD. KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶69

BY ADV. SRI MILLU DANDAPANI

¶70

THIS OP TAX HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.06.2020, ALONG WITH OP (TAX).8/2019, OP (TAX).11/2019, OP (TAX).12/2019, OP (TAX).16/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶71

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶72

¶73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶74

PRESENT

¶75

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶76

¶77

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶78

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶79

OP (TAX).No.16 OF 2019

¶80

AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 38/2015 DATED 31-08-2017 OF AGRL.INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,ERNAKULAM

¶81

PETITIONER:

¶82

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM.

¶83

BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶84

RESPONDENT:

¶85

PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD KALOOR,KOCHI-682017.

¶86

BY ADV. SRI MILLU DANDAPANI

¶87

THIS OP TAX HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.06.2020, ALONG WITH OP (TAX).8/2019, OP (TAX).11/2019, OP (TAX).12/2019, OP (TAX).13/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶88

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

JUDGMENT

T.R.RAVI, J.

The above original petitions have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. All the cases relate to the very same respondent assessee, which is a hospital. The assessee did not remit luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976, for the period November, 2013 to April, 2014. A notice proposing to impose penalty under Section 17A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act was issued to the assessee. On receipt of the notice, the assessee filed the returns and requested to waive the proposal to impose penalty of double the amount of tax due for each of the months. The Intelligence Officer confirmed the proposal to impose penalty and issued orders imposing penalty at double the tax for the period. In appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the orders of the Intelligence Officer were modified by reducing the penalty for each month to

¶93

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019 7

¶94

Rs.10,000/-. The Revenue challenged the orders of the Appellate Authority before the Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 31.8.2017, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal have relied on the decision of this Court in T.R.Ramachandran v. Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Thrissur

¶95

and others reported in [1997 (106) STC 413 (Kerala)] , to

¶96

say that it was not a case where the assessee had sought to evade tax, but only a case of delay in complying with the provisions of the Act.

¶97

Heard Sri Mohammed Rafiq, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Millu Dandapani on behalf of the respondent assessee.

¶98

The learned Government Pleader relied on the decision of this Court in Little Flower Hospital Trust v. State of Kerala, reported in [2019 (3) KLT 242] to submit that under Section 17A, there is no requirement of mens rea on the part of the assessee, for imposing penalty. We are in complete agreement with the above proposition. Section 17A reads thus;

¶99

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶100

¶101

17A. Imposition of penalties by assessing authority: -If

¶102

an assessing authority is satisfied that any person-

¶103

(a) liable to pay tax under this Act,-

¶104

(i) has failed to keep true and complete accounts; or (ii) has failed to submit any return as required by provisions of this act or the rules made thereunder or has submitted an untrue or incorrect return; or

¶105

(b) has failed to comply with all or any of the terms of any notice issued to him by or under the provisions of this act or the rule made thereunder or

¶106

¶107

(d) has acted in contravention of the provisions of this act or any rule made thereunder, for the contravention of which no express provision or payment of penalty or punishment is made by this Act;

¶108

such authority may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty an amount not exceeding twice the amount of luxury tax or other amount sought to be evaded where it is practicable to qualify such evasion, or, an amount not exceeding five thousand rupees in any other case. Explanation - The burden of proving that any person is not liable to the penalty under the section shall be on such person. “

¶109

A reading of the above Section clearly shows that all that is required is the satisfaction of the assessing authority regarding

¶110

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶111

¶112

failure to submit returns as required by the provisions of the Act or Rules, for the purpose of imposing penalty. Wherever there is a requirement of mens rea as an essential element, Statutes give indication of the same by using words like knowingly, falsely, intentionally, fraudulently, wilfully, etc. as observed by this Court in Little Flower Hospital (supra).

¶113

Even though we are of the view that mens rea on the part of the assessee is not an essential element to be proved for imposing penalty under Section 17A, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief in these original petitions. The First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal have found that the imposition of penalty was warranted. However, the above authorities held that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- for each month during which the returns were not filed, need to be imposed as penalty, instead of double the amount of tax due. Section 17A clearly says that the authority may impose as penalty, “an amount not exceeding twice the amount of luxury tax or other amount sought to be evaded where it is practicable to quantify such evasion, or an amount not exceeding five thousand rupees

¶114

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶115

¶116

in any other case.” Since there is sufficient discretion available to the authorities regarding the amount of penalty to be imposed, and since two authorities had found that imposition of Rs.10,000/- for each of the five months, during which there has been failure to file returns, is sufficient, we do not think it would be proper for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and restore the penalty imposed by the assessing officer or make any enhancement. The original petitions are dismissed.

¶117

In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

¶118

Sd/-

¶119

K. VINOD CHANDRAN

¶120

JUDGE

¶121

Sd/T.R. RAVI JUDGE

¶122

dsn

¶123

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶124

¶125

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 8/2019

¶126

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶127

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB) ERNAKULAM,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(INTELLIGENCE),DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM DATED 16.05.2014.

¶128

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)II,COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM DATED 27.08.2014.

¶129

EXHIBIT P3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2017.

¶130

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶131

¶132

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 11/2019

¶133

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶134

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 16.05.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.08.2014.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2017.

¶135

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶136

¶137

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 12/2019

¶138

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶139

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULM DATED 16.05.2014.

¶140

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.08.2014.

¶141

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2017.

¶142

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶143

¶144

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 13/2019

¶145

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶146

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), ERNAKULAM, OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 16.05.2014. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.08.2014.

¶147

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2017.

¶148

O.P.(Tax) Nos.8,11,12,13 and 16 of 2019

¶149

¶150

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 16/2019

¶151

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶152

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PENALY ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE (IB)ERNAKULAM,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM DATED 16.05.2014.

¶153

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)II,COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM DATED 27.08.2014.

¶154

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2017.

State of Kerala v. Pvs Memorial Hospital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of Kerala v. Pvs Memorial Hospital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabith B., Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

M/S.E.v.Mathai/Sons Vs State of Kerala

S.Gopal Kamath(Cochin), Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise

Dr.S.Ramalingam, Vs State of Kerala

Carmel College, Mala Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Pvs Memorial Hospital Ltd.