Disposed

M/S. M.C. Eldho & Company, v. the State Tax Officer

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/24283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor working exclusively for the Travancore Devaswom Board challenged a GST demand order, arguing its reply to the show cause notice was not considered and figures were discrepant. The court found the reply incomprehensible but set aside the demand order, granting one final opportunity to file a proper reply and appear for fresh adjudication.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. M.C. Eldho & Company, 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 GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24283 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. M.C. ELDHO & COMPANY, MOOLEKUDIYIL HOUSE, NELLAD P.O., MAZHUVANNUR,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 669, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.C. ELDHO.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 542.

¶12

2THE STATE TAX OFFICER,
TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX
DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 542.

¶13

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001.

¶14

4 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

5 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003.

¶16

6 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SALES TAX COMPLEX, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 002.

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C)No.24283/2024

¶19

7 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶20

8THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE) ,
FINANCE (INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC WORKS-B)
DEPARTMENT,GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
PIN – 695 001.

¶21

BY ADVS

¶22

JASMINE M.M (GP)
G. BIJU (FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶24

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.24283/2024

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the 2^nd respondent.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is exclusively working for the Travancore Devaswom Board and they are not engaged in doing any work for any other entity. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the 2^nd respondent has not considered the contentions taken in the replies submitted by the petitioner. Specific reference is made to Ext.P4 reply, which is stated to have been filed in reply to Ext.P3 show cause notice.

¶30

On going thorough Ext.P4 reply, I observe that the reply is totally incomprehensible, and even if the figures in that reply are taken into account, there is still a discrepancy in the figures taken for the purposes of finalising the demands in Ext.P5 and in the figures that had been reported by the Travancore Devaswom Board for

¶31

W.P.(C)No.24283/2024 4

¶32

whom the petitioner is engaged in certain contract works. Since the reply of the petitioner is totally incomprehensible, I cannot find fault with the officer for having finalised the demands in terms of Ext.P5 and the learned Government Pleader may be right in suggesting that the petitioner must avail statutory remedies against Ext.P5. However, it appears from the contention taken by the petitioner and the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.2999 of 2024 that the petitioner discharged CGST/SGST at 12%, even though, according to the petitioner, such amount was not paid by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner is also stated to be uneducated.

¶33

Taking all these facts cumulatively into consideration, and though this order may not be justified on any legal principle, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P5, and direct that the petitioner be given one further opportunity to file a proper reply to Ext.P3 show cause notice. I make it clear that I have not expressed any

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C)No.24283/2024

¶36

opinion on the merits of the matter and the 2^nd respondent is free to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall file a proper reply to Ext.P3 show cause notice on or before 24-07-2024. The petitioner shall appear before the 2^nd respondent at 11.00 A.M. on 24-07-2024 and thereafter, the 2^nd respondent shall complete the adjudication of Ext.P3 show cause notice afresh as directed herein above.

¶37

Writ petition will stand disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

ats

W.P.(C)No.24283/2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24283/2024

¶43

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶44

`Exhibit P1`	`COPY` `DTD.`	`OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `21-01-2021.`
`Exhibit P2`	`COPY` `BEFOR`	`OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `E THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-08-2023.`
`Exhibit P3`	`COPY` `RESPO`	`OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `NDENT DTD. 27-12-2023.`
`Exhibit P4`	`COPY` `FORM` `DTD.`	`OF LETTER ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN` `GST DRC-06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `24-03-2024.`
`Exhibit P5`	`COPY` `DTD.`	`OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `26-03-2024.`
`Exhibit P6`	`COPY` `PETIT` `EXECU` `2018.`	`OF A SAMPLE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE` `IONER ALONG WITH A SAMPLE AGREEMENT` `TED WITH THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 21-05-`
`Exhibit P7`	`COPY` `WORKS`	`OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE` `AWARDED DTD. NIL.`
`Exhibit P8`	`COPY` `BEFOR`	`OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `E THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 14-11-2023.`
`Exhibit P9`	`COPY` `HON'B`	`OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 2999/24 OF THIS` `LE COURT DTD. 16-02-2024.`
`Exhibit P10`	`COPY` `DTD.`	`OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `31-05-2024.`
`Exhibit P11`	`COPY` `FINAN` `DEPAR`	`OF CIRCULAR NO. 18/2019/FIN ISSUED BY` `CE (INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC WORKS-B)` `TMENT.`

M/S. M.C. Eldho & Company, v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. M.C. Eldho & Company, v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekha G P Vs the Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Kalpatta

Subrahmanian Vs the District Collector

Association of I.T Employees Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Panazan Enterprises (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Kitex Garments Ltd, Vs Union of India

Kitex Childrenswear Ltd., Vs Union of India