Dismissed

Jinny Jaison v. the State Tax Officer

Kerala HC21 Mar 2024WP(C)/10859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a revised order demanding input tax on differential turnover. The court held that the availability of an alternative remedy under the KVAT Act prewrt jurisdiction. The disposition is not a substantive grant of relief but a procedural dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy; leave open to approach appellate authority.

Jinny Jaison Vs the State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10859 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JINNY JAISON
AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

WIFE OF JAISON T. A [PROPRITRIX, ABHILASH JEWELLERY,
SRA/28, SANTHOSH STREET, THATTIL HOUSE, UNITY ROAD,
KURIACHIRA P.O. THRISSUR ., PIN - 680006

¶9

BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM
M.RAJ MOHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER

¶12

KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, CHAVAKKAD, PIN - 680506

¶13

2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER TAX PAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, NATTIKA, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR ., PIN - 680004

¶14

3 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), KERALA STATE GOODS &AMP; SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR ., PIN - 680004

¶15

4 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA STATE GOODS &SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680004

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SMT. JASMIN M.M. - GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 10859 OF 2024

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2024

¶23

The petitioner was an assessee under the provisions of Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KVAT Act’). The petitioner has been dealing in jewellery business. During the financial year 2022-2023, as per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner participated in the auction sale of gold ornaments conducted by the financier M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, on allegation that on verification of the data available with the department certain sales and purchases were not found accounted by the petitioner. The assessment order in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was completed on 30.07.2016 as evidenced in Ext.P1.

¶24

The petitioner aggrieved by the said assessment order filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.12.2017 in Ext.P4. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.11.2022 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to pass fresh

¶25

WP(C) NO. 10859 OF 2024

¶26

¶27

assessment order.

¶28

3.While the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the intelligence wing of the State Goods and Services Tax Department initiated proceedings against the seller for suppression of turn over and non payment of tax. The seller produced the copies of the sale bills issued to the petitioner during the year 2012-2013. Petitioner was issued notice and the petitioner filed replies to the said notice issued by the intelligence wing of the State Goods and Services Tax Department.

¶29

4.After considering the replies of the petitioner to the notices issued by the assessing authority on the inputs given by the intelligence wing of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department, a revised notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.08.2023. The petitioner replied to the said notice explaining the defects pointed out and requested to consider the documents issued by the State Tax Officer. However, the 2^nd respondent passed an order dated 05.12.2023, demanding input tax on the differential turn over. The said order is under challenge before this court.

¶30

5.Admittedly, there is a remedy of appeal under Section 55 of the KVAT Act before the appellate authority against the said order. This court does not find that the order suffers from

¶31

WP(C) NO. 10859 OF 2024

¶32

¶33

jurisdictional error or violation of principle of natural justice or there is an error apparent on the face of record.

¶34

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, if he is so advised.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C) NO. 10859 OF 2024

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10859/2024

¶42

`PETITIONER EXHIB` `EXHIBIT P1`	`ITS` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `ASSESSM`	`ENT` `ORDER`
	`NO.32081163096/2012-13 DATE` `ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT`	`D 30-7-2016`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `NO.00590-KL/2012-13` `DATED` `ISSUED BY MANAPPURAM FINANCE`	`INVOICE` `8-11-2012` `LTD.`
`EXHIBIT P2(A)`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `NO.00624-KL/2012-13 DATED` `ISSUED BY MANAPPURAM FINANCE`	`INVOICE` `20-11-2012` `LTD`
`EXHIBIT P2(B)`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `NO.00592-KL/2012-13 DATED` `ISSUED BY MANAPPURAM FINANCE`	`INVOICE` `09-11-2012` `LTD`
`EXHIBIT P2(C)`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `NO.00593-KL/2012-13 DATED` `ISSUED BY MANAPPURAM FINANCE`	`INVOICE` `10-11-2012` `LTD.`
`EXHIBIT P2(D)`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `NO.00497-KL/2012-13 DATED` `ISSUED BY MANAPPURAM FINANCE`	`INVOICE` `22-09-2012` `LTD`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT` `PERTAINING TO A/C.NO.03260530` `THE PERIOD FROM 8-06-2010`	`OF ACCOUNTS` `00011788 FOR` `TO 31-3-2013`
	`ISSUED BY SOUTH INDIAN BA` `BRANCH`	`NK, NATTIKA`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER` `DATED 15-12-2017 ISSUED BY` `COMMISSIONER` `(APPEALS),` `DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR`	`KVAT 701/16` `THE DEPUTY` `STATE` `GST`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ASSES` `NO.32081163096/2012-13 DATE` `ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT`	`SMENT ORDER` `D 25-7-2019`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY` `APPEAL CONDITIONALLY. TRUE` `APPEAL ORDER KVAT NO.497/19` `2020 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONE` `STATE GST DEPARTMENT; THRISSU`	`ALLOWED THE` `COPY OF THE` `DATED 13-5-` `R (APPEALS),` `R`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICA` `29/2016-17 DATED 09-06-2022` `RESPONDENT WITH COPIES OF THE`	`TION NO.IBC-` `BY THE 3 RD` `BILLS`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `TH`	`E` `NOTICE`
	`NO.32081163096/2012-13 DATED`	`21-05-2022`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATE`	`D 15-06-2022`

¶43

WP(C) NO. 10859 OF 2024

¶44

¶45

	`SUBMITTED` `ST RESPON`	`BY` `DENT`	`THE PETITI`	`ONER BE`	`FORE THE 1`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COP` `NO.826/20`	`Y` `18`	`OF THE` `& 827/2018`	`ORDER` `DATED`	`TA (VAT)` `25-11-2022`
	`ISSUED BY` `APPELLATE`	`T` `TRI`	`HE KERALA` `BUNAL, ERN`	`VALUE` `AKULAM`	`ADDED TAX`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE CO` `NO.320811` `ISSUED BY`	`PY` `6309` `THE`	`OF THE` `6/2012-13` `2 ND RESP`	`REVIS` `DATED` `ONDENT`	`ED NOTICE` `01-08-2023`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED`	`OF` `BY`	`THE REPLY` `THE PETITI`	`DATED` `ONER`	`17-08-2023`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE`	`COP`	`Y` `OF`	`THE`	`ORDER`
	`NO.320811` `ISSUED BY`	`6309` `THE`	`6/2012-13` `2 ND RESP`	`DATED` `ONDENT`	`5-12-2023`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`TRUE`	`COP`	`Y` `OF`	`THE`	`ORDER`
	`NO.320811` `ISSUED BY`	`6309` `THE`	`6/2012-13` `2 ND RESP`	`DATED` `ONDENT`	`15-02-2024`

Jinny Jaison v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinny Jaison v. the State Tax Officer

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

Kec International Ltd, Vs Union of India

Kec International Ltd, Vs Union of India

Kec International Ltd, Vs Union of India

Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes

M Trans Corporation, Vs the State Tax Officer

Kannur International Airport Limited, Vs Tahsildar, Thalassery Taluk