Partly allowed

Jojo Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022OT.Rev/46/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed tax revision petitions challenging penalty proceedings. The court confirmed the limitation period finding but remanded the case to the Tribunal to re-examine the merits of the penalty quantum as the Tribunal had not considered them adequately.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order was partly confirmed on limitation but set aside on merits; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration of penalty quantum within four weeks.

Jojo Francis Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶6

OT.REV NO. 46 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 523/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOJO FRANCIS, AGED 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. ANITTA POULTRY FARM, MUTHALAMADA, GOVINDAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON K.KRISHNA; MEERA V.MENON; R.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP SMT JASMINE M M

¶14

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.50/2022, 48/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶16

-2-

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶22

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶23

OT.REV NO. 50 OF 2022

¶24

AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 524/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶25

JOJO FRANCIS, AGED 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. ANITA POULTRY FARM, MUTHALAMADA, GOVINDAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶26

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

¶27

RESPONDENT/S:

¶28

STATE OF KERALA

¶29

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶30

GP SMT JASMINE M M

¶31

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.46/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶33

-3-

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶37

¶38

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶39

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶40

OT.REV NO. 48 OF 2022

¶41

AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 526/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶42

MUBARAK ALI, AGED 41 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S.BISMILLAH POULTRY FARM, M.PUDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 581.

¶43

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

¶44

RESPONDENT/S:

¶45

STATE OF KERALA,

¶46

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶47

GP SMT JASMINE M M

¶48

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.46/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶50

-4-

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶52

PRESENT

¶53

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶54

¶55

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶56

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶57

OT.REV NO. 47 OF 2022

¶58

AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 525/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶59

MUBARAK ALI, AGED 41 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.BISMILLAH POULTRY FARM, M.PUDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 581.

¶60

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

¶61

RESPONDENT/S:

¶62

STATE OF KERALA

¶63

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶64

GP SMT JASMINE M M

¶65

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.46/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶67

-5-

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶71

¶72

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶73

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶74

OT.REV NO. 97 OF 2020

¶75

AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 596/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶76

VIJAYAKUMARAN .V, AGED 57 YEARS M/S.VISMAYA POULTRY FARM, CHITTICHIRAKALAM, NENMENI, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶77

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SMT.K.KRISHNA

¶78

RESPONDENT/S:

¶79

STATE OF KERALA

¶80

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶81

GP SMT JASMINE M M

¶82

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.46/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶83

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶84

-6-

¶85

O R D E R

¶86

[OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020]

¶87

S.V. Bhatti, J.

¶88

We have heard Mr Harisankar V Menon learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs M M Jasmin, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶89

The revisions are tagged together since the identical

¶90

question of law under Section 67 of the KVAT Act arises for consideration.

¶91

2.1 The Counsel appearing for the parties have treated

¶92

the circumstances in O.T. Rev. No.50/2022 as the lead case for the narration and consideration. Both the Counsel have further

¶93

stated that the consideration and conclusion in O.T. Rev. No.

¶94

50/2022 would also apply to other revisions.

¶95

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶96

-7-

¶97

O.T. Rev. No. 50/2022

¶98

Jojo Francis is a dealer registered under the KVAT Act and doing business in poultry farming. On 10.12.2010, the dealer received notice under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. The dealer filed W.P.(C) No.541/2011, challenging the notice dated 10.12.2010. This Court admittedly had granted a stay of enquiry pursuant to notice dated 10.12.2010. On 01.10.2012, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the competent authority to deal with Ext.P3 in the manner directed by this Court. On 20.02.2014, the Intelligence Officer confirmed the penalty proposed for the acts of omission and commissions noted in the penalty proceedings. The order of penalty was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 08.04.2015. The dealer filed TA(VAT) No.524/2018 before the Kerala Value

¶99

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶100

Added Tax/Agrl. Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode (for short, Tribunal). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal through the order impugned in the instant revision. Hence, the revision under Section 63 of the KVAT Act.

¶101

Mr Harisankar V Menon argues that Section 67(1)

¶102

proviso stipulates the outer limit for completion of penalty proceedings. The proceedings under Section 67(1) could be stated to have been set in motion by notice dated 10.12.2010. The order of penalty is dated 20.02.2014. Reckoning the period of limitation from 10.12.2010 till 20.02.2014, the order is beyond the period of limitation, and the Tribunal illegally and erroneously considers this aspect of the matter. Secondly, it is argued that the Tribunal did not consider the dealer's case on the merits raised on the levy of penalty, quantum, etc. He invites our attention to the following paragraphs:

¶103

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶104

-9-

¶105

“10. With regard to the merits of the case it is seen that the Revisional Authority has given maximum deduction to the appellant and that is evident from the modified order produced by the learned Additional Law Officer. It is seen that as per the order of Revisional Authority, the penalty of 10,57,512/- is reduced to 8,63,512/-. Therefore in the merits also we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Hence these points are answered accordingly.”

¶106

and contends that the reduction of penalty cannot be the basis for confirming the other grounds raised on merits. Therefore, prays for setting aside the order under revision.

¶107

Adv Jasmin contends that Section 67(1) proviso reads

¶108

thus:

¶109

"Provided that the authority empowered under this section shall dispose of the case within three years from the date of detection of offence mentioned under this section except where the extension of time is granted by the Deputy Commissioner."

¶110

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶111

In the case on hand, the dealer filed writ petition and obtained stay of enquiry in penalty proceedings. Briefly stated, the order of stay was in operation for two years. The dealer cannot take advantage of his unsuccessful effort and put the period of limitation as a ground for proceeding in the penalty proceeding. The three-year period at best could be calculated by excluding the period during which there was a stay of operation and a stay of enquiry before the Intelligence Officer. While replying to the argument that the Tribunal did not consider the merits, she commends to this Court to appreciate the grounds stated on merits and whether the Tribunal fell short in discharging its function as a second appellate authority. For that being the case, confirming the findings for the limitation period for reconsideration of other issues, the matter ought to be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration

¶112

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶113

-11-

¶114

and disposal afresh.

¶115

Having considered the submissions, we are of the

¶116

view that the first ground under Section 67 of the KVAT Act, namely that the penalty proceedings are not concluded within the period of limitation, it should be kept in mind that Section 67(1) proviso speaks of the natural flow of events and circumstances surrounding an enquiry under Section 67 of the Act. Admittedly, the dealer has not allowed the continuation of, if it could be stated as the cause of action, or once the time starts running, it is not stopped except in the manner provided by law. These are fundamentals in appreciating the cause of action and reckoning the limitation period. But, the incapacity or interdiction with the free flow of events are exceptions to be kept in mind for calculating the period of limitation with the starting point of the cause of action. Reverting to the

¶117

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶118

circumstances on hand, it can be stated that by his choice or option, the dealer interdicts the running of the period of limitation, and the dealer cannot be gainsaid that his choice of filing the writ petition enures to dealer’s benefit. The Tribunal considered the reckoning of the limitation period by adverting to the relevant circumstances and the manner in which the proviso must be read to determine the limitation. We are in complete agreement with the Tribunal’s findings on the limitation raised under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. Hence, confirmed the findings.

¶119

The next question is the non-consideration of the dealer’s case on merits by referring to the order of the revisional authority. The findings are brief, and it holds tenable, for the Tribunal has not considered the merits raised by the dealer on quantum etc. Therefore, to the limited extent

¶120

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶121

of considering the grounds raised on the merits of the penalty

¶122

imposed by the primary authority, the case stands remitted to the Tribunal for disposal afresh.

¶123

8.1 To sum up, we conclude that the findings of the Tribunal on Section 67(1) r/w proviso on the period of limitation are tenable and confirmed. For the discussion above, the succinct findings recorded while disposing of the revision on the merits of the matter are set aside, and the case is remanded to the limited extent for consideration and disposal afresh.

¶124

8.2 Accordingly, we confirm the finding that the initiation and the completion of penalty proceedings are within time. To the extent indicated above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. We remit the matter to the Tribunal for examination of grounds raised on the quantum etc., of the penalty. The

¶125

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶126

-14-

¶127

Tribunal considers and disposes of the case preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶128

The O.T. Revisions are ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

jjj

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶137

-15-

¶138

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 50/2022

¶139

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶140

Annexure A COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34462/2010 OF HIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 01.10.2012 Annexure B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION,ALUVA DATED 20.02.2014

¶141

Annexure C COPY OF ORDER IN KVAT REVISION PETITION NO.209/14 OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER , PALAKKAD DATED 08.04.2015

¶142

Annexure D COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD DATED 23.01.2015

¶143

Annexure E COPY OF ORDER IN TA (VAT) NO.524/2018 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 20.12.2021

¶144

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶145

-16-

¶146

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 48/2022

¶147

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶148

Annexure A COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.34462/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Annexure B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA. Annexure C COPY OF ORDER IN KVAT REVISION PETITION NO.207/14 OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD.

¶149

Annexure D COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. Annexure E COPY OF ORDER IN TA (VAT) NO.526/2018 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶150

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶151

-17-

¶152

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 47/2022

¶153

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶154

Annexure A COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.34462/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Annexure B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA. Annexure C COPY OF ORDER IN KVAT REVISION PETITION NO.208/14 OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD. Annexure D COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. Annexure E COPY OF ORDER IN TA (VAT) NO.526/2018 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶155

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶156

-18-

¶157

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 97/2020

¶158

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶159

ANNEXURE A COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.34462/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 01.10.2012. ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION ALUVA DATED 20.02.2014. ANNEXURE C COPY OF ORDER IN KVAT REVISION PETITION NO.190/14 OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD DATED 04.03.2015. ANNEXURE D COPY OF ORDER IN TA(VAT)NO.596/2018 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 02.03.2020.

¶160

OT.Rev Nos.46/2022, 50/2022, 48/2022, 47/2022, 97/2020

¶161

-19-

¶162

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 46/2022

¶163

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶164

Annexure A COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.34462/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Annexure B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA. Annexure C COPY OF ORDER IN KVAT REVISION PETITION NO. 210/14 OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD Annexure D COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. Annexure E COPY OF ORDER IN TA(VAT) NO. 523/2018 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

Jojo Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jojo Francis 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs Steel Emporium

State of Kerala Vs M/S Agreenco Fibre Foam (P) Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Agreenco Fibre Foam (P) Ltd.

M/S. Kunnel Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Kunnel Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Saidalavi Koya Thangal, Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board