Absence of required shipping documents under the KVAT Act precludes entitlement to tax concessions on sales.

J U D G M E N T

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.27489/2023 dated

22/11/2023.

2. The appellant is a dealer in consumer items and was registered under the provisions of the KVAT and CST Acts on the rolls of the 1st respondent during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11.

3. The appellant's sales were mainly to the Lakshadweep Administration. The sale of goods intended for use in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is entitled to the reduction in the levy of tax @4% under the KVAT Act on condition of filing the necessary declaration from the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. According to the appellant, he sold various items to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and therefore, he is entitled to the reduction in levying of tax @4% under the KVAT Act . The appellant's claim for concession of 4% availed on the strength of Form 42 was rejected for want of copies of shipping documents. It is alleged that the appellant effected sales of goods at the concessional rate of 4% to the authorities under the Lakshadweep Administration represented by the 3rd respondent on assurance of furnishing copies of shipping documents along with the declaration in Form 42. Still, the 3rd respondent later expressed inability to give the shipping bills or similar documents along with the declaration in Form 42 as per Rule 12C(1). It is in these circumstances, the appellant approached this court with the writ petition for a direction to the 3rd respondent to furnish the shipping document or best evidence in respect of the supplies made by the appellant to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration for the purpose of availing concessional rate of tax @4% under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the KVAT Act . As per the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The appellant is before us challenging the said judgment.

4. We have heard Sri.K.N.Sreekumaran, the learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Sajith Kumar V., the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration.

The appellant asked for shipping documents related to the periods 2005-06 to 2010-11. According to him, he has sold goods to the Administration, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and has raised invoices for the same. The appellant had earlier approached this court for almost similar reliefs, and the Division Bench, in the writ appeal, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, for the required documents. As the documents sought for by the appellant were for the periods 2005-06 to 2010-11, the appellant's request could not be complied with by the 3rd respondent. Though the appellant filed a contempt petition, it also came to be dismissed. Now, for the very same purpose, the appellant has filed this writ petition after the lapse of almost ten years. The 3rd respondent had already intimated that the documents sought for were not available. The appellant never claimed or insisted on shipping documents at the time of delivery/supply of goods. We find no reason to disbelieve the stand of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration that for supplies made from 2005-06 to 2010-11, the documents are not available at present. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.