Allowed

M/S.Maharajika Gold Super Market Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by Its Managing Director v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2023WP(C)/14548/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged notices demanding purchase tax and the amendment to Section 8(f) of the Kerala VAT Act via the Kerala Finance Act, 2014. The High Court quashed the notices relying on a coordinate bench judgment regarding dealers paying compounded tax.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices (Exhibits P-1 to P-5) quashed; assessing authority directed to finalise assessment based on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.32456 of 2016 (F).

M/S.Maharajika Gold Super Market Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by Its… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14548 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S.MAHARAJIKA GOLD SUPER MARKET PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR:
ABDUL KADER, S/O. HAMZA, AGED 60 YEARS,
MALIYAKKATHODI HOUSE, THAZHEKODE WEST P. O.,
MALAPPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.K.SHAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY(TAXES),
TAXES DEPARTMENT, ABOVE OLD ASSEMBLY HALL,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, 9TH FLOOR, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶12

3 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA - 679322.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 14548 OF 2017

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the amendment made to Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax with effect from 01.04.2013 under the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 (Act 29 of 2014). The petitioner has further challenged Exhibit P-1 to P-5 notices issued to the petitioner demanding purchase tax under Section 25 (1) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

¶20

Mr. K. Shaji, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Reshmitha Ramachandran, Learned Government Pleader have submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32456 of 2016 (F) M/s. Josco Fashion Jewelers v. State of Kerala and others and connected cases dated 10.07.2017 . The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has held as under;

¶21

“ 2. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Kerala Finance Act, 2017, was enacted with effect from 1.4.2017. Through the said Act, Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act was amended by inserting the following proviso to Section 6(2)(a), namely,

¶22

“provided that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (f) of Section 8, a dealer paying compounded tax for the goods mentioned in that

¶23

WP(C) NO. 14548 OF 2017

¶24

¶25

clause, shall not be liable to pay tax under this sub section on such goods with effect from 1 st April, 2013”.

¶26

The amendment aforementioned has the effect of clarifying that, dealers paying tax on compounded basis under Section 8(f), need not pay tax under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act, on the goods in question, with effect from 1.4.2013. In view of the amendment with effect from 1.4.2013, these writ petitions are allowed, by quashing the impugned notices that propose an assessment to purchase tax, the impugned orders, to the extent, they confirm a demand of purchase tax and the impugned penalty orders, to the extent, they are based on the aforementioned assessment orders. The respondent shall do the needful in finalising the assessments and penalty proposals in relation to the petitioners on the basis of the observations in this judgment.”

¶27

Considering the aforesaid provision of law as declared by this Court it its Judgment in W.P.(C) No.32456 of 2016 (F) and connected

¶28

cases dated 10.07.2017 (supra) , the present writ petition is also allowed and impugned notices (Exhibits P-1 to P-5) are hereby quashed. The assessing authority is directed to finalise the assessment keeping in mind the Judgment rendered by this Court in

¶29

W.P.(C) No.32456 of 2016 (F) and connected cases dated 10.07.2017 (supra).

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶32

Svn

¶33

WP(C) NO. 14548 OF 2017

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14548/2017

¶36

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28/2/2017 UNDER
SECTION 25(1) AND 25(A) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003
FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶38

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF NOTICES DATED 28/2/2017 UNDER
SECTION 67(1)(i) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28/2/2017 UNDER
SECTION 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD 28/2/2017 UNDER
SECTION 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT,2003 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD 28/2/2017 UNDER
SECTION 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

M/S.Maharajika Gold Super Market Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by Its Managing Director v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Maharajika Gold Super Market Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by Its Managing Director 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sri. Kadar Koya Haji, Vs the Secretary to Government

P.v.Shajahan Vs Azhiyur Grama Panchayath

M. Baiju Vs the Secretary

Mohammed Althaf.v.S Vs State of Kerala

M.I.Romans Vs the State Tax Officer