The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging tax re-fixing orders that relied on website information regarding machinery capacity, applying a precedent to set aside the orders as issued without jurisdiction.
Exts.P9 and P10 orders re-fixing compounded tax for years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 24786 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
C.G. GEORGE
CHENDAYAD GRANITES (P) LTD., KSIDC INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, VALIYAVELICHAM, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670643.
BY ADV ANJALI MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER STATE TAX OFFICE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, KUTHUPARAMBA - 670643.
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT THUSHARA JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) 24786/2018
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders issued by the first respondent in respect of the petitioner's crusher unit re-fixing the compounded tax respectively for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 based on the information available in the website of the company and the certificate issued by the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to pass an order in the nature of Exts.P9 and P10 on the basis of website information. In Ext.P9, it is stated as follows:-
“As per information available in the website of the company Sandvik CV 218 VSI impact crusher is having a capacity of 193 to 250 tone/hr. As per certificate issued by Senior Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Kozhikode of Pollution Control Board M-sand machine used by you is having a capacity of 1280 tones/day i.e 160 tones/hour considering the average working hours. The assessment records and document made available to Accountant General has also been verified by the undersigned and found the defects pointed out by the Accountant General is sustainable.”
W.P.(C) 24786/2018
3
In Ext.P10, the first respondent has stated thus:-
“As per information available in the website of the company Sandvik CV 218 VSI impact crusher is having a capacity of 193 to 250 tone/hr. As per certificate issued by Senior Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Kozhikode of Pollution Control Board M-sand Machine used by you is having a capacity of 1280 tone/day ie. 160 tones/hour considering the average working hours. The assessment records and document made available to Accountant General has also been verified by the undersigned and found the defects pointed out by the Accountant General is sustainable.”
It is evident that Exts.P9 and P10 proceedings have been initiated
based on the information available in the website. In Ozone Granites
(P) Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer [2018 (3) KLT 228], this Court has
held:-
“There is no presumption in law that website information relating to merchandise are correct. It is common knowledge that website information, especially that of merchandise, may or may not be correct. Issues of similar nature have come up before American Courts and the consistent stand taken in such matters is that there cannot be judicial notice as regards website information. Indian Courts had occasion to consider the issue whether print outs of the judgments taken from websites can be relied on and the stand taken is that the same can be relied on, if its authenticity and reliability are not doubted. The pretensions of a manufacturer as regards the products manufactured by them would not bind even the manufacturer, in the absence of fraud, in the light of the principle caveat emptor. In the aforesaid
W.P.(C) 24786/2018
4
background, there cannot be penal proceedings at all on the presumption that the website information as regards merchandise are correct. The impugned order, in the circumstances, is one issued without jurisdiction.”
In the light of the aforesaid decision, I find force in the submission of the petitioner that Exts.P9 and P10 orders, which are issued on the basis of website information, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, Exts.P9 and P10 orders are set aside.
Writ petition is allowed to the said extent.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
W.P.(C) 24786/2018
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24786/2018
PETITIONER's EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED ON 3.6.2016 VALID UPTO 31/3/2017 ALONG WITH THE COMMODITIES PERMITTED TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION TO PAY TAX UNDER COMPOUNDING SCHEME CATEGORY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT PERMITTING TO PAY TAX UNDER SEC. 8(B) FOR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.2016 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY TAX UNDER SECTION 8(B) FOR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 25A NOTICE DATED 7.3.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEARS 2014-15. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE 25A NOTICE DATED 7.3.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED ON 31.5.2018.
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE CO |
PY OF |
THE NO |
TICE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO.321210396 | 3/2014-15 DA | TED 6.6.2018 | OF | |
| THE FIRST | RESPONDENT | DIRECTING | THE | |
| PETITIONER | TO APPEAR | BEFORE HER | ON | |
| 18.6.2018 AT | 11 A.M. FOR | HEARING. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE CO |
PY OF |
THE NO |
TICE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO.321210396 | 3/2015-16 DA | TED 6.6.2018 | OF | |
| THE FIRST | RESPONDENT | DIRECTING | THE | |
| PETITIONER | TO APPEAR | BEFORE HER | ON | |
| 18.6.2018 AT | 11 A.M. FOR H | EARING. | ||
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY | OF THE ORDER | DATED 22.6. | 2018 |
W.P.(C) 24786/2018
6
REFIXING THE COMPOUNDED FEE FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2018 REFIXING THE COMPOUNDED FEE FOR THE YEAR 2015-16.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON 14.3.2013.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R1(A):TRUE COPY OF AUDIT OBJECTION.
R1(B):TRUE COPY OF THE WEBSITE INFORMATION.
R1(C):TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
R1(D):TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER.
spc/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Exts.P9 and P10 orders re-fixing compounded tax based on website information were issued within jurisdiction pursuant to precedent.
Whether penal proceedings can be initiated solely on the presumption that website information regarding merchandise capacity is correct.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding the basis of re-fixing compounded tax warrants allowance of the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ozone Granites (P) Ltd. v. Intelligence OfficerApplied¶29
Ozone Granites (P) Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer [2018 (3) KLT 228]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.G. George
Chendayad Granites (P) Ltd.
The State Tax Officer
The Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Kerala
Murali Purushothaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
