Evidence must be presented to substantiate claims regarding tax assessments; otherwise, the findings of the appraisal authority stand.

O R D E R

Dr.A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar,J.

This OT.Revision is preferred against the final order dated

15.02.2023 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in TA (VAT) NO.149/2019.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this OT.Revision are as follows:- The petitioner is stated to be engaged in works contracts as a dealer registered under the KVAT Act. For the assessment year 2014-2015, the assessment relating to the petitioner was completed on applying the compounded rate of tax at 4% on the entire payment received of Rs.40,65,988/-. It is the case of the petitioner that compounded rate to be applied had to be 3% instead of 4%, going by Ordinance No.21/2014 dated 03.09.2014, since, according to the petitioner the amounts received pertain to the works contracts executed in the previous year, namely 2013-2014. The assessing authority did not accept the said contention of the petitioner and accordingly finalized the assessment by adopting the rate of 4% and calculating the turnover as pertaining to assessment year 2014-2015.

3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who confirmed the order of the assessing authority in the absence of any documents to prove that the work in question was actually executed in the previous year.

4. In a further appeal preferred before the tribunal also the appellate tribunal specifically found that the petitioner had not produced convincing evidence to prove that the amount received during the year 2014-2015 pertains to the works executed in the previous year. It is based on the concurrent findings on fact that the tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

5. Before us the petitioner raises the following questions of law for decision in the revision petition:-

“A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the appellate tribunal erred in finding that the no supporting evidence is produced in support of the claim of ongoing works contract?

B) Ought not the learned tribunal have ordered re-verification of the contract details at the hands of the assessing authority?”

6. We have heard Smt. K Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings to demonstrate that the amount received which was subjected to tax in the assessment year 2014-2015 pertained to works contracts executed during the immediately preceding assessment year 2013-2014, the applicable compounded rate had to be 4% and not 3% as contended by the petitioner.

8. Since the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was based purely on facts and rendered in the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner to the contrary, we do not see any substantial question of law arising from the impugned order of the tribunal.

The OT.Revision is therefore dismissed as devoid of merit by answering the questions of law raised against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE