IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
M/s. MCP Enterprises, Represented By Its Executive Partner Mr. M.C. Mohammed Kutty - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Secretary, Taxes Department, Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.13673 of 2017(H), W.P.(C) No.12818 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.20255 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.20465 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.20840 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.20841 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.21003 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.21004 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.23629 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.23638 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.23654 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.23662 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.32107 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.5981 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.8385 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.9648 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.13083 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.13442 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.15808 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.16012 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.26416 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.7909 of 2019(K), W.P.(C) No.10348 of 2019(P), W.P.(C) No.10357 of 2019(T), W.P.(C) No.10509 of 2019(K), W.P.(C) No.10525 of 2019(M), W.P.(C) No.10755 of 2019(T), W.P.(C) No.10898 of 2019(J), W.P.(C) No.11038 of 2019(D), W.P.(C) No.11474 of 2019(H), W.P.(C) No.11546 of 2019(P), W.P.(C) No.11622 of 2019(C), W.P.(C) No.12827 of 2019(C), W.P.(C) No.14113 of 2019(L), W.P.(C) No.16779 of 2019(V), W.P.(C) No.18717 of 2019(L), W.P.(C) No.18719 of 2019(L), W.P.(C) No.21117 of 2019(L), W.P.(C) No.21307 of 2019(K), W.P.(C) No.21473 of 2019(H), W.P.(C) No.24012 of 2019(B), W.P.(C) No.24670 of 2019(G)
Decided On : 18-12-2019
Kerala Value Added Tax Act- Section 42(3)- The KVAT Rules - Rule 58(20) -The time limit specified in Rule 58(20) of the KVAT Rules offers a safe guide to define the limits of the power under Section 42(3) of the Act. It would ensure that the power to reopen assessments, so as to bring to tax escaped turnover, is not exercised in a manner that prejudicially affects an assessee who is not in a position to meet the charge against him for want of his Books of account and other relevant material.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner/assessees impugn the pre-assessment notices/assessment orders issued to them to complete assessments of escaped turnover by invoking the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act- It is the common case in all these writ petitions that the period envisaged for re-opening assessments under Section 25 of the KVAT Act had expired by the time the notices for re-opening assessments, invoking Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act, were issued to them. The petitioners therefore contend that in such cases, the Revenue cannot invoke Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act to re-open assessments that have already become final under the KVAT Act.
Finding of the court:
The retrospective operation of Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act, but declaring that the power to re-open assessments under the said provision cannot be exercised in relation to such assessments where the period for which the assessee concerned is obliged to retain the Books of account under Rule 58(20) of the KVAT Rules has expired. The retrospective operation of Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act will thus stand controlled by the period of limitation aforementioned, and the legality of the notices/orders impugned in these writ petitions shall stand determined by the said declaration.
Result: Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioner/assessees impugn the pre-assessment notices/assessment orders issued to them to complete assessments of escaped turnover by invoking the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “KVAT Act”]. It is the common case in all these writ petitions that the period envisaged for re-opening assessments under Section 25 of the KVAT Act had expired by the time the notices for re-opening assessments, invoking Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act, were issued to them. The petitioners therefore contend that in such cases, the Revenue cannot invoke Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act to re-open assessments that have already become final under the KVAT Act.
2. To appreciate the issue raised in these writ petitions, one has to first notice the statutory provisions under the KVAT Act. As per the Scheme of the KVAT Act, the assessment procedure commences with the filing of a return by the assessee. If the return filed by the assessee conforms to the requirement under the KVAT Act and Rules, in respect of the details of turnover to be furnished and the tax to be paid thereon, and there is no query raised by the Revenue within the period prescribed for the same, the assessment to tax is deemed completed as a self-assessment to tax by the assessee under Section 21 of the KVAT Act. If an assessee does not file a return as contemplated by the KVAT Act and Rules or files a defective return, then the assessment is completed on best judgment basis by the Revenue after following the procedure under Section 22 of the KVAT Act. In certain cases, as enumerated under Section 24 of the KVAT Act, an assessment can be completed pursuant to consideration of audit objections in relation to the details furnished by the assessee along with his returns. The assessments completed under Sections 21, 22 and 24 can still be re-opened in terms of 25 of the KVAT Act to assess such turnover as has escaped assessment to tax in an earlier assessment. The power to assess escaped turnover under Section 25 has, however, to be exercised within the period stipulated under the Act for the exercise of such power. The said period was five years from the end of the assessment year concerned till 31.3.2017, and was extended to six years from the end of the assessment year concerned thereafter.
3. Section 42 of the KVAT Act, as it stood till 12.11.2016, read as follows:
Provided that a co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (21 of 1969), may in lieu of the statement and certificate mentioned above, submit a copy of the audited statement of accounts and certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on or before 31st day of December of the year succeeding to the year to which annual return relates.
(2) Where any dealer detects any omission or mistake in the annual return submitted by him with reference to the audited figures, he shall file revised annual return rectifying the mistake or omission along with the audit certificate. Where, as a result of such revision, the tax liability increases, the revised return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax, interest due thereon under sub-section (5) of section 31, and penal interest, calculated at twice the rate specified under sub-section (5) of section 31:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to a dealer against whom any penal action is initiated in respect of such omission or mistake under any of the provisions of this Act.”
By a notification dated 13.11.2016, the Section was amended to insert a new sub section therein, with retrospe
Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited
Ghanshyam Das v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur
Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. v. S.P. Kasture and Others
State of Gujarat and Another v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai and Others
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India and Others v. Uttam Steel Limited
Chhedi Lal Yadav and Others v. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) Through Legal representatives and Others
Southern Motors v. State of Karnataka and Others
Union of India v. G.M. Kokil & Others
South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram & another
Municipal Corporation Indore & Others v. Smt. Rethna Prabha & Others
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Narendar
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorolla IMS
Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi
Regional Assistant Commissioner Indore v. Malva Vanaspathi & Chemical Company Ltd.
Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
M.P. Sundararamier & Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh
M/s. J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Bahuji v. Municipal Committee, Khandwa
Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telungana and Others
State of Karnataka and others v. Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association and Others
Mr. Jadao Bahuji v. The Municipal Committee, Khandwa and another
M/s. Raghubar Dayal Jai Parkash and Others v. The Union of India and another
R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Another
Jayam and Company v. Assistant Commissioner and Another
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Others
State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.
New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited
Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.