DR.S.NARAYANAN V. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR

WP(C)/6074/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. S. Narayanan, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order for the year 2009-10 issued by the Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer, Alathur. The petitioner claimed exemption based on purchase bills, which were initially found unsatisfactory under Rule 10(K) of the KVAT Rules. After receiving a pre-assessment notice, the petitioner had the bills sealed by the sellers and submitted them, but the Assessing Officer rejected these documents, alleging manipulation to evade tax. The court found that the matter of document acceptance was suitable for resolution through a statutory appeal rather than direct judicial intervention.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699438 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: KVAT Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHOBA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; MAHESH MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Exemption Claim; Purchase bills; Statutory Appeal; Tax Evasion
• Section: 10(k)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 6074 of 2013 (H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- DR.S.NARAYANAN, NARAYANA AYURVEDA CHIKITSALAYAM, CHITTILAMCHERRY PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR 678541, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY SR GP SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6074 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 COPY OF INVOICE NO.2191 ISSUED BY M/S.KASHMIR PHARMA, PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(a) COPY OF INVOICE NO.20527 ISSUED BY M/S.PALGHAT AYURVEDIC AGENCIES. EXT.P1(b) COPY OF INVOICE NO.1266 ISSUED BY M/S.AAVANI AGENCIES, PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(c) COPY OF INVOICE NO.252 ISSUED BY M/S.BROTHERS PHARMA, PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(d) COPY OF INVOICE NO.6052 ISSUED BY M/S.AISWARYA AYURVEDIC AGENCIES, PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(e) COPY OF INVOICE NO.618 ISSUED BY M/S.G.P.AGENCIES, PALAKKAD. EXT.P-2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4 COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE AISWARYA AYURVEDIC AGENCIES. EXT.P4(a) COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE LAKSHMI AYURVEDIC EXT.P4(b) COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE G.P.AGENCIES. EXT.P4(c) COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE KASHMIR PHARMA. EXT.P4(d) COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE BROTHERS PHARMA. EXT.P4(e) COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AVANI AGENCIES. WP(C).No. 6074 of 2013 -2- EXT.P4(f) COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PALGHAT AYURVEDIC AGENGIES. EXT.P-5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).6074/2013 - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 an assessment order passed against him for the assessment year 2009-10. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the claim of the petitioner for exemption has been denied on the ground that the purchase bills produced by him did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 10(K) of the KVAT Rules. 2. However, case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the receipt of the pre assessment notice, petitioner got the purchase bills sealed by his sellers and produced those documents before the Assessing Officer. It is stated that despite the production of the documents, the benefit has been declined to him. 3. A reading of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has found that, subsequent sealing of the documents is a manipulated criminal act of the assessee to stamp the bills subsequent to its verification. On this basis, the Assessing Officer has concluded that there was a deliberate attempt to evade tax. W.P.(C).6074/13 2 Thus, the Assessing Officer, for his own reasons, found that the documents produced by the petitioner was unacceptable. Therefore, the question whether these documents are to be accepted or not is a matter which can be decided only in a statutory appeal. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the remedy available to the petitioner against Ext.P5 is to pursue statutory remedy of appeal. 4. Therefore, I decline to interfere with Ext.P5 and direct that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy of appeal against Ext.P5. It is also directed that if an appeal is filed within ten days from today, the appellate authority will entertain the same and consider the appeal on merits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge "