Allowed

M/S.Edappal Hospital (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2020OT.Rev/112/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three tax revisions involving a hospital. Relying on a Full Bench judgment exempting hospital purchases and sales of medical items, the court set aside orders imposing VAT. Revisions allowed subject to reservation if the Supreme Court reverses the ruling.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Appellate Tribunal set aside and questions answered in favor of the assessee. Revisions allowed subject to reservation pending Supreme Court appeal.

M/S.Edappal Hospital (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHAND RAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶6

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942

¶7

OT.Rev.No.101 OF 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTHERS 1166/2013 DATED 29-10-2014 OF VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PKD

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶10

M/S.EDAPPAL HOSPITAL (P) LIMITED EDAPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRS.CHITRA GOPINATH.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA

OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶16

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.06.2020, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.96/2015, OT.Rev.112/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶18

::2::

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶24

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942

¶25

OT.Rev.No.96 OF 2015

¶26

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 1163/2013 DATED 29-10-2014 OF VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PKD

¶27

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶28

M/S. EDAPPAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD. EDAPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MRS.CHITRA GOPINATH

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

¶30

RESPONDENT:

¶31

STATE OF KERALA

¶32

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.06.2020, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.101/2015, OT.Rev.112/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶34

::3::

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶40

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942

¶41

OT.Rev.No.112 OF 2015

¶42

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTHERS 1165/2013 DATED 29-102014 OF VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PKD

¶43

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶44

M/S.EDAPPAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD EDAPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRS. CHITRA GOPINATH

¶45

BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

¶46

RESPONDENT:

¶47

STATE OF KERALA

¶48

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.06.2020, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.96/2015, OT.Rev.101/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶50

::4::

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

[O.T. Rev.Nos. 101/2015, 96/2015 and 112/2015]

¶53

(Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2020)

¶54

K.Vinod Chandran, J

¶55

The revisions raise the very same issue of

¶56

exigiblity to tax of the purchase and sale of laboratory chemicals, surgical items, charges for

¶57

X-ray by the assessee, a hospital. Admittedly the purchase was for the purpose of medical emergencies and the sale was also on prescription of the medical practitioner to the patients for therapeutic purposes.

¶58

The issue stands covered by a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Sanjose Parish Hospital (M/s.) and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others [2019 (1) KHC 377 (FB)] .

¶59

2. The contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader is that there is a Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which, however, no stay has been granted admittedly.

¶60

In the above circumstances, we do not think that the revisions need be kept pending and we follow the

¶61

decision of the Full Bench to set aside the orders

¶62

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶63

::5::

¶64

passed by the Tribunal and answering the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

¶65

3. In the matter of assessments for three

¶66

separate years, raised in O.T.Rev.Nos.101, 96 and 112 of 2015 respectively from T.A.(VAT) Nos.1166, 1163 and 1165 of 2013 of the Appellate Tribunal; the revisions are allowed with the reservation that if the Hon'ble Supreme Court reverses the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, then necessarily the assessee would also be subject to that and the State would be entitled to make demand on the basis of the assessment orders now set aside as modified by the first appellate authority, if any such modification is made.

¶67

Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶68

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge

¶69

Sd/T.R RAVI, Judge

¶70

jma

¶71

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶72

::6::

¶73

APPENDIX OF OT.Rev 101/2015

¶74

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶75

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONNANI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200708 DATED 31.12.2010

¶76

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) O/OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, DATED 27.12.2011

¶77

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON TRIBUNAL ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD, IN T.A.VAT NOS 1163/2013,1165/2013 & 1166/2013 DATED 29.10.2014

¶78

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶79

::7::

¶80

APPENDIX OF OT.Rev 96/2015

¶81

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶82

ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONNANI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200506 DATED 31.12.2010.

¶83

ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),O/o OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, DATED 27.12.2011.

¶84

ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON TRIBUNAL 0RDER PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD, IN T.A.VAT. Nos.1163/2013, 1165/2013 & 1166/2013 DATED 29.10.2014.

¶85

O.T. Rev.No.101/2015 and con.cases

¶86

::8::

¶87

APPENDIX OF OT.Rev 112/2015

¶88

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶89

ANNEXURE -A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONNANI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 DATED 31.12.2010 ANNEXURE -B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), O/OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, DATED 27.12.2011

¶90

ANNEXURE -C TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON TRIBUNAL ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD, IN T.A.VAT.NOS. 1163/2013, 1165/2013 AND 1166/2013 DATED 29.10.2014

M/S.Edappal Hospital (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Edappal Hospital (P) Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Metso Minerals India (P) Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs Vikranth Tyres Ltd.

State of Kerala, Vs M/S.Vikranth Tyres Ltd.

M/S. Edappal Hospital (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Edappal Hospital (P) Limited Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala, Vs Winto Paulose Paul