M/S.DENNIS STEELS (P)LIMITED V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)

WP(C)/4944/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Dennis Steels (P) Limited, which challenged the assessment order and the rejection of their rectification application concerning tax assessments. The petitioner contested the inclusion of epoxy coating charges in the sale price and the misclassification of stock transfers as purchases. The Assessing Officer had verified the tax elements and found no inclusion of advance tax in the sale price, and noted discrepancies in the stock transfer entries. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the relevant documents, decided not to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions, suggesting that the petitioner could pursue an appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 740076 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K SHAMSUDHEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: A KUMAR; P J ANILKUMAR; G MINI; P S SREE PRASAD
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Stock Transfer; Tax verification; Epoxy coating charges; VAT element

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 4944 of 2017 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------ M/S.DENNIS STEELS (P)LIMITED, VALAVANADU, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.K.J.DENNIS. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ALAPUZHA-688 001. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPUZHA-688 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 4944 of 2017 (P) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY RETURNS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST DATED 10/09/2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY RETURNS FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER DATED 10/11/2009 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURNS DATED 18/05/2010 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.08.2012 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 07/10/2015 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS (RELEVANT PAGES)EVIDENCING ENDORSEMENT BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 18.03.2016 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 27/01/2017 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 18/01/2017. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/ K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C)No.4944 of 2017 - P ========================= Dated this the 14th day of February, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P8 order of assessment made on demand and also an order passed subsequently at Ext.P10. The contention taken is that the remand order has not been complied with. 2. The specific contention is with respect to the two directions in Ext.P6 remand order, wherein, the tax element was found to require a verification at the hands of the Assessing Officer and the consideration of the issue of difference in stock transfer as projected by the petitioner. With respect to the verification required of the tax element, it is contented that the issue requiring verification was whether the element of sale price, included the expenditure incurred for epoxy coating. 2 W.P.(C)No.4944/2017 3. The petitioner had filed an annual return without showing epoxy coating charges. While in the audit report, the same was added on along with the VAT element, for the purposes of showing the turn over. The contention with respect to epoxy coating was specifically declined by the Appellate Authority. Only with respect to the VAT element, there was a consideration directed. The issue hence directed to be considered was as to the advance tax paid at the time of transport of goods into the State, being included in the sale price. 4. The next issue was with respect to stock transfer, which the petitioner stated were made in the months of August and October. There was a mistake occurred while uploading Form 10 during the months of August and October and the stock transfers were uploaded as purchase, is the contention. 3 W.P.(C)No.4944/2017 5. It is true that the assessment order at Ext.P8 merely noticed that no books of accounts were produced and refused to interfere with respect to the two directions made in the appellate order. However, in rectification, the same was considered. The tax verification was done by the Assessing Officer and it was found that there was no inclusion of advance tax paid at the time of import into the State, in the sale price. The Assessing Officer with respect to the stock transfer of August and October found that though statement of inter- state purchases were uploaded, the dealer had filed return without showing any inter-state purchase or stock transfer. 6. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed; under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner however would be left with remedy to file appeal from the impugned orders. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie 4 W.P.(C)No.4944/2017 in nature to decline jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same shall not in any way govern the consideration of appeal. The writ petition would stand dismissed. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/14/02/2017 // true copy // P.A to Judge "