Disposed

C. a George v. the State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022OP (TAX)/31/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tax revision petition challenges the Kerala VAT Tribunal's conditional stay order which required the petitioner to deposit tax calculated at demand rates rather than the compounded rate. The High Court held the Tribunal's approach didn't warrant interference as it involved merits but granted an order allowing three equal instalments to pay the 20% condition.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed the Tribunal's order but granted three equal instalments for depositing the 20% condition within the stipulated timeframe.

C. a George Vs the State Tax Officer (Works Contract) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶3

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944 O.P. (TAX) NO.31 OF 2022

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/AGRL. INCOME
TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, KOTTAYAM IN
INTP.No.36/22 IN T.A.(VAT) No.25/22 DATED 02.06.2022)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

C. A GEORGE, AGED 72 YEARS,
WORKS CONTRACTOR,
CHOOLACKAL HOUSE,
CHINNAKKANAL P.O., MUNNAR,
IDUKKI, PIN – 685 618
BY ADVS.
SABU C.J
M.RAJAGOPAL
APARNA ANIL
S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
RAHUL A.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT),
COMMERCIAL TAXES,
O/O THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA, PIN – 685 508
2THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001
3THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, NAGAMBADAM, OPP. NEHRU STADIUM,
KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001
SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, STANDING COUNSEL

¶11

THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P.(Tax)No.31/2022

ORDER

(Dated: 11th August, 2022)

¶16

S.V.Bhatti, J

¶17

Heard Adv.S.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Adv.V.K.Shamsudheen, learned Government
pleader.

¶18

The petitioner challenges the conditional order
of stay dated 02.06.2022 as unsustainable and prima
facie case is not considered. Secondly, imposing the
condition by reference to tax demanded instead of the
compound rate of tax, is equally unsustainable.
Therefore, in substance, the grievance is that the
Tribunal erred in exercising its discretion while
granting the conditional order of stay dated
02.06.2022. Mr. V.K.Shamsudheen, learned Government
Pleader contends that 20% now imposed as a condition
by the Tribunal is by referring to the tax liability
of the petitioner; may be prima facie case is an issue

¶19

O.P.(Tax)No.31/2022

¶20

¶21

for consideration on merits in the appeal. Determining

¶22

the amount payable as condition by referring to the
compound rate of tax would virtually amount to allowing
the case of the petitioner. While considering the
application filed for a stay on the time to be granted,

¶23

he submits that, the petitioner has already availed
substantial time and the court considers stipulating
reasonable instalments for complying with the
condition imposed by the Tribunal.

¶24

We have taken note of the submissions made by the
counsel. The order of the Tribunal prima facie does

¶25

not warrant our interference on any of the grounds now
canvased by the petitioner. The said view we take for
more than one reason, one of them is that the
contentions if considered virtually amount to

¶26

recording findings on the merits of the matter. We are
persuaded with one of the submissions of the learned
counsel Mr.S.Anil Kumar that the time granted by the
Tribunal is unreasonable. Hence while confirming the
order under revision, we grant three equal instalments
for depositing the 20% imposed as condition by the

¶27

O.P.(Tax)No.31/2022

¶28

¶29

Tribunal. The 1st instalment is payable on or before

¶30

29.10.2022.

¶31

O.P.Tax is disposed of as indicated above.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

¶34

Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

O.P.(Tax)No.31/2022

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 31/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit1COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-07-2012
PERMITTING TO PAY TAX UNDER THE COMPOUNDED
RATE OF TAX FOR THE YEAR 2012-13
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
19.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR
THE YEAR 2012-2013.
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE
AUTHORITY DATED 30.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED
IN EXT-P4 APPEAL
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF STAY ORDER DATED 02-06-2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
19.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR
THE YEAR 2011-12.
Exhibit P8COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2013-
14.
Exhibit P9COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30-01-2021
ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT.
Exhibit P10COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.6/2019 DATED 15-05-
2015 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES
Exhibit P11COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA IN SUPREME ELECTRICAL ENGG. (P)
LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [(2008)(3)
KLT 805]
Exhibit P12COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-06-2022 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT FREEZING BANK ACCOUNT.

C. a George v. the State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. a George v. the State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs v.Krishnakumar

Malabar Gold (P) Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

A.M. Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Martin Puthumana Thomas, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Chakolas Habitat Bay Side

Assistant Commissioner Vs M/S.Interdec