Revision to affirm Tribunal order concluding petitioner failed to maintain proper accounts in a branch place, leading to excess stock addition. Court found no independent consideration warranted and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed affirming the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal.
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
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944
ST.REV. NO. 1 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 11/2013 OF S.T.A.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,TVM. PETITIONER/S:
G.SARUN, AGED 40 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, M/S.BHASKARAN EXPORTS, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN
THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S.T.(Rev) No.1/2021
-2-
O R D E R
S.V. Bhatti, J.
Heard Mr Harisankar V Menon for Revision Petitioner and
Government Pleader M M Jasmin for respondent.
2. The subject matter of the revision relates to the return period 2001-02. The petitioner was an assessee/dealer registered under the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act 1963 (for
short ‘the Act’). The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.11.2020 in T A No.11/2013 of Kerala Value Added Tax/Agrl.
Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘Tribunal’).
3. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Dealer and substantially confirmed all the findings recorded by the primary and the first appellate authority. The Assessing Officer made the best judgment assessment under as many as 13 heads.
S.T.(Rev) No.1/2021
-3-
A perusal of the assessment order dated 30.11.2006 disclosed
that even before the primary authority, a few of the heads have been seriously contested, and independent findings are recorded on each one of the heads under which either turnover is added or an applicable rate of tax is adopted. The Deputy Commissioner, through Annexure-B order dated 16.09.2008, confirmed the order in Annexure-A. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and, vide order in Annexure-C dated 30.06.2010, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the first appellate authority for reconsideration and decision afresh. Upon remand, the Deputy commissioner re-examined all the aspects and, through Annexure-D order, dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Though several questions have been raised during the argument, the relevance of the arguments could arise by juxtaposing the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Stated
S.T.(Rev) No.1/2021
-4-
briefly, the Tribunal, in paragraph 11 of the order, categorically
found that the appellant failed to maintain proper accounts in the branch business place, and the entire stock found there was taken as excess stock. Though this is a finding in respect of one of the additions made to the turnover, similar applicable findings of fact have been recorded on all the four points decided by the Tribunal.
5. We have the advantage of reading through the order with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the petitioner.
After perusing the order of the Tribunal, we express agreement with the reasoning and the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal. Except for the reiteration of reasons in different syntax, an independent consideration and reason are not warranted against the confirming orders of the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner, and the Tribunal. Hence, we are not getting into such a discussion and are constrained to
S.T.(Rev) No.1/2021
-5-
dismiss the revision by affirming the reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal in T A No.11/2013.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE
jjj
S.T.(Rev) No.1/2021
-6-
APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 1/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM DATED 30.11.2006.
ANNEXURE B COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM DATED 16.09.2008. ANNEXURE C COPY OF ORDER IN TA NO.273/2008 ISSUED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.06.2010. ANNEXURE D COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM DATED 18.12.2012. ANNEXURE E COPY OF HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER BEFORE THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 23.10.2020. ANNEXURE F COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE SALES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 27.09.1995. ANNEXURE G COPY OF ORDER IN TA NO.11/2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/AGRL.INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.11.2020. Annexure H COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMNT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 2001-02
G.SARUN
STATE OF KERALA
S.V. BHATTI
BASANT BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
