P.K.NAZAR V. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/35065/2014

AI Insights

The case involves P.K. Nazar, the petitioner, who challenged an auction notice (Ext.P11) issued by the revenue authorities for the sale of his property due to alleged sales tax arrears amounting to Rs.1,73,338 along with interest and other charges. The petitioner contended that he had already remitted substantial amounts and was entitled to refunds based on appellate orders, which were not considered in the demand. The respondents, including the Commercial Tax Officer and the Kerala Value Added Tax/ Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, defended the proceedings based on their requisition. The court found merit in the petitioner's request for clarification on the exact liabilities and directed the first respondent to provide a detailed account.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 738228 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOBBY JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: G HARIHARAN; PRAVEEN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Refund; Revenue recovery; Sales tax arrears
• Section: 197

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 35065 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.K. NAZAR, PEEKEYEM TIMBERS, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAY AM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAY AM DISTRICT, PIN-686 506. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/ AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLANTE TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTA YAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 507. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAY AM DISTRICT, PIN-686 513. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 35065 of 2014 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 06/06/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD 08/07/2013 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER DTD NIL PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 28/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 22/07/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EVIDENCING CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF MOVABLES TAKEN FROM THE PETITIONER FOR RS.65,000/-. P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN VAT APPEAL NO.197/2014 ALONG WITH A STAY PETITION BEFORE THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ERNAKULAM. P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED FROM THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, AT KOTTA YAM ON 23/09/2014. P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 27/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ATTACHING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER. P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLANTE ORDER MADE IN KVATA NO.2520/2011 DTD 25/07/2013 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-II), KOTTA YAM. P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD 01/10/2013 MADE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-II) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM WITH COPY MARKED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DTD 17/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35065 of 2014 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2016 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 auction notice by which the revenue authorities had proposed the sale of the property belonged to the petitioner on the ground that an amount of Rs.1,73,338/- along with interest and other charges are due to the Government. This was based on the requisition issued by the Sales Tax Department. In Ext.P11, it is stated that the amount is “sales tax arrears”. According to the petitioner, he had remitted substantial amounts and recovery was also effected. He was also entitled to get refund of certain amount on the basis of the appellate orders. Petitioner had given a list of amounts paid in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, which according to him would come to Rs.3,30,420/-. It is therefore stated that substantial amounts had been paid and the amount now claimed is in far in excess of the a known liabilities of the W.P.(C) No. 35065 of 2014 -2- petitioner. That apart, the refund orders had not been taken into consideration while making the aforesaid demand. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed inter alia stating the matter in which the requisition had been made. It is stated that it is based on the requisition given by the first respondent that the proceedings had been taken. They have given a tabulated column showing the amounts received as well as the amount payable by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that from the details given from the counter affidavit, it is not discernible as to how the amount had been arrived at and in which case or with reference to which assessment year. Therefore appropriate directions are to be issued in the matter. 4. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated based on the requisition and the entire details had been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first and the third respondent. Petitioner is well aware of the liabilities he W.P.(C) No. 35065 of 2014 -3- had incurred and if at all he has any doubt in regard to his liability, his remedy is to approach the first respondent and seek necessary clarification. Having regard to the factual situation arising in the case, especially, when the petitioner has paid substantial amounts and that he is entitled to get refund from the Department, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions: i. Petitioner shall make a request to the first respondent to provide details of the liability which still subsists, after crediting all amounts paid by the petitioner and also after effecting the refund, if any, within a period of two weeks from today. ii. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall provide the petitioner with all such details within a further period of one month. W.P.(C) No. 35065 of 2014 -4- iii. Until such time, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 shall be kept in abeyance. iv. If or any reason, the amount claimed in Ext.P11 is excessive or incorrect, fresh proceedings shall be taken by the revenue authorities or else it shall be open for the revenue authorities to proceed in accordance with Ext.P11 notice. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Scl/23.06.2016 "