Revision against a VAT Tribunal order remanding a dispute on price variation to the Assessing Officer. The Court confirmed the remand, held it was within correct reasons, and allowed the revision on procedural grounds without deciding merits.
Revision dismissed; Tribunal order upholding remand to Assessing Officer confirmed.
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 S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OT.REV NO. 1 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 63/2018 OF VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PKD
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM - 11.
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN
RESPONDENT/S:
M/S. B.V.BIO - CORP (P) LTD, DHONI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 009.
BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.JAFFERALI
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.T. Rev. No.1/2019
-2-
O R D E R
S.V. Bhatti, J.
The Department is challenging the order dated 05.05.2018
in TA (VAT) No.63/2018 of the Kerala Value Added Tax, Additional Appellate Tribunal, Palakkad. The Tribunal, after appreciating the central issue in the controversy between parties, recorded the following findings:
“ 1. The only issue is that goods received had been disposed at a price lesser by 4,24,731/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty four thousand seven hundred and thirty one only).
The assessing authority has sought to levy tax on the same placing reliance on explanation V and VII to section 2(lii) of KVAT. Prima facie analysis of the situation reveals that these two explanations are not attracted in the given situation.
O.T. Rev. No.1/2019
-3-
issued by the Head Office is produced. The appellant has also produced the copy of stock transfer note 'IN' and sales invoices to prove the above claim.
O.T. Rev. No.1/2019
-4-
Hence it is only just and reasonable that appellant is given an opportunity to appear before the assessing authority and furnish the split details of goods sold at reduced price and its corresponding receipt, within one month of the receipt of this order, and if produced the Assessing Authority shall verify the same and delete the addition to the extent proved and modify the assessment accordingly.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the Assessing Authority is directed to modify the assessment as directed above. It is made clear that the appellant shall appear and produce evidence before the assessing authority within one month of the receipt of this order, failing which the original order shall stand restored.”
out or giving effect to the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal, the matter needs to be remitted to the Assessing Officer. Hence remanded the matter. The Department substantially questions the order of remand.
the very findings which convinced the Tribunal to remand the
O.T. Rev. No.1/2019
-5-
matter to the Assessing Officer. We have perused the grounds stated in the revision and take note of the Rules on the very same lines. We are convinced that the remand of the matter was found by the Tribunal for the correct reasons. The grounds raised do not come within the scope of Section 63 of the Kerala Value-Added Tax Act. If we now take up the argument made on merits and decide the issue, then it will affect one party or the other in the remand. Hence, we are, while confirming the findings of the Tribunal, refraining from considering other ancillary grounds raised by the Department in the revision.
Revision fails. Hence, dismissed.
Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/BASANT BALAJI JUDGE
jjj
O.T. Rev. No.1/2019
-6-
| APPENDIX OF OT.REV 1/2019 | |
|---|---|
| PETITIONER ANNEXURES | |
| ANNEXURE A | TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.08.2016 |
| ANNEXURE B | TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.11.2017 |
| ANNEXURE C | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.05.2018 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court of Kerala has jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Kerala Value-Added Tax Act to adjudicate the merits of the revision.
Whether the remand order by the Tax Appellate Tribunal requires interference by the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner, Sales Tax, UP vs Sourashtra ChemicalsReferred¶28
Commissioner, Sales Tax, UP vs Sourashtra Chemicals [(1996) 100 STC 448]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Kerala
M/s. B.V.Bio - Corp (P) Ltd
S.V. Bhatti
Basant Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
