P.V.JOSE V. AGRL.INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/26447/2011

AI Insights

The case involves P.V. Jose, representing M/S.P.B.S. Traders, who filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of their appeals by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeals were initially dismissed on the grounds of non-payment of admitted tax for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner argued that since they had challenged the entire turnover assessed, there was no admitted tax to be paid. The Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner had admitted a liability of Rs.21,576 for 2003-2004 and Rs.48,274 for 2004-2005. However, the court decided in favor of the petitioner, quashing the dismissal order and directing a re-evaluation of the appeals on their merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755986 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHOBA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; MAHESH MENON
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Revenue recovery; Tax demand; Turnover
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26447 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V. JOSE, M/S.P.B.S. TRADERS, KOTTEKKULAM, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR- 678 541. 2. APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER -11, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD- 678 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26447 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE SALES DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER FOR 2003-04. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE SALES DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER FOR 2004-05. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26447 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT By Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders, the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The petitioner filed appeals against the same, which are Exts.P3 and P4. In the said appeals, the petitioner has challenged the entire turn over assessed and the tax demanded. However, by Ext.P7 common order, the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the admitted tax. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not filed any returns and the petitioner has challenged the entire turnover assessed in the assessment orders and therefore, there is no question of paying any admitted tax. The petitioner, therefore, submits that Ext.P7 is liable to be quashed and the appeals are liable to be directed to be considered on merits. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that in the W.P.(C)No.26447/11 2 writ petition, the petitioner admits the liability to the extent of Rs.21,576 for 2003-2004 and Rs.48,274/- for 2004-2005 and therefore, at least that amount is to be paid as demanded tax. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Going by the appeals filed by the petitioner, of course the petitioner has challenged the entire turnover and the tax assessed. Therefore, there is considerable merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to revenue recovery proceedings petitioner has already paid more than Rs.1 lakh. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to restore the appeals to file and dispose of the same in accordance with law on merits. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.26447/11 3 W.P.(C)No.26447/11 4 "