F.M.FAROOK V. THE AIT & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/11229/2016

AI Insights

The case involves F.M. Farook, the proprietor of R.F. Exports, who challenged an order (Ext.P8) issued by the Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer regarding the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 2013-2014. The petitioner contended that he had not received a crucial notice referenced in the order and sought an opportunity to present C-Forms to substantiate his claim for a concessional tax rate. The court, upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, found procedural lapses in the issuance of the notice and allowed the petitioner to present his case afresh.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693672 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Central Sales Tax Act, KVAT Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R RENJITH
• Assessee Lawyers: V NARASIMHAM
• Keywords: C-Forms; Concessional rate of tax; Taxable turnover; CST Assessment
• Section: 25(1); 6.5%

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 11229 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- F.M.FAROOK, PROPRIETOR, R.F.EXPORTS, CHANDIROOR - 688 537, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAES, KUTHIYATHODE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 533. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 002. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RENJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 11229 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN E-FILED ON 31.5.14 FOR THE YEAR 13-14. P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 08.1.15 ISSUED U/S 25(1) OF KVAT ACT FIXING TAXABLE TURNOVER AS RS. 16,89,45,929/- FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 08.1.15 ISSUED U/S 6(5) OF THE CST RULES FIXING INTERSTATE TAXABLE TURNOVER OF RS. 27,68,290/- FOR THE YEAR 13-14. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 27.1.15 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.7.15 ISSUED U/S 25(1) FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.7.15 ISSUED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE CST ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT. 01.8.2015 AGAINST EXT. P5 & P6 NOTICES FURNISHED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 TRUE COPY OF CST ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 26.09.15 FOR THE YEAR 13-14 LEVYING HIGHER RATE OF CST BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER DT. 09.11.15 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.11229 of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2016 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order passed by the 1st respondent in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-2014 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that although, Ext.P8 order refers to a notice dated 08.08.2015 that was supposedly served on the petitioner, he had not received a copy of the said notice and besides, he was only asking for an opportunity to produce the C- Forms that were available with him for the purposes of establishing his claim with regard to concessional rate of tax. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from Ext.P8 -2- W.P.(C). No.11229 of 2016 order that although it refers to a notice dated 08.08.2015 that was supposedly served on the petitioner, and the petitioner had specifically asked for a copy of the said notice, the copy of the said notice was not furnished to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that in fact there was no notice dated 08.08.2015 that was served on the petitioner and instead it was a notice dated 08.01.2015 which was served on the petitioner and to which the petitioner had already furnished a detailed reply. I find further that the request of the petitioner was only for some time for production of balance C- Forms so as to support his contention with regard to concessional rate of tax. Inasmuch as no prejudice will be caused to the respondents by permitting the petitioner an opportunity to produce the C-Forms available with him to support his contentions with regard to concessional rate of tax, I quash Ext.P8 order and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment in relation to the petitioner for the aforementioned assessment year under the Central Sales Tax Act. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at his office at 11 am on 12.04.2016. The 1st respondent shall pass orders as directed within a month thereafter. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/31.3.16 -3- W.P.(C). No.11229 of 2016 "