The facts in this writ petition compel me to begin this judgment with some observations as regards the manner in which procedural provisions in a taxing statute ought to be interpreted in a developing economy such as ours. Although taxing statutes must receive a strict interpretation, designed as they are to exact money from a citizen so as to finance Government expenditure, the interpretation cannot be a reckless one, mindless of the probable impact that it could have on tax paying assessees or, as in the instant case, members of the trading community. To err is human, more so in accountancy, and unless it is established that the accounting lapse was the result of a willful omission or suppression with an intent to evade tax, the trade tax authorities in a civilized society should give due regard to the dignity of the members of the trading community and be more accommodative to reasonable requests for regularising technical omissions with a view to ensuring tax compliance. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously remarked that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the mediocre mind'. In a similar vein, a mechanical application of procedural provisions in a Taxing Statute, without considering the purpose for which they were inserted in the Statute, does not augur well for the reputation of the tax man, whose attitude must change with the times, so that citizens see him more as a facilitator for tax compliance rather than a legally empowered money snatcher.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition is engaged in the trade of various items and is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act'] on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed annual returns for the year 2011- 2012 and duly paid the tax payable based on the returns filed. Subsequent to the filing of returns, the books of accounts of the petitioner were audited, and during the course of audit, certain mistakes were noticed, in that, certain purchases and sales had been omitted to be reported to the Department. The petitioner therefore applied to the respondents, for permission to revise the returns that were submitted for the assessment year 2011-12. The request of the petitioner was not acted upon by the respondents, and it is therefore that the petitioner has approached this Court, through the present writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise the annual return for the assessment year 2012-12, so as to incorporate details of the transactions that were omitted to be included while filing the original return.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, wherein, after referring to the omissions occasioned by the petitioner, it is stated that the respondents did not grant permission to the petitioner to revise the returns, since, the time permitted under the Statute, for revising returns, had already expired. It is contended that the limitation provisions under the Statute have to be strictly construed, and a belated request for revising a return is not maintainable, more so, when a revision of the return would lead to an alteration of the turnover and tax liability already declared by the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Venus Marketing v. State of Kerala - [(2011) 19 KTR 575 (Ker)] as also a decision of the Supreme Court in Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner and Another - [(2016) 96 VST 1 (SC)], to contend that the provisions regarding availment of concessions, under a Taxing Statute, have to be strictly construed, and they cannot be treated as rights conferred on assessees under the Statute, and further, when there is a suppression of facts by a dealer, concessions envisaged under the Taxing Statute should not normally be extended to the assessee.

6. On a