Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8687
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
M/S BPL LTD BPL WORK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23291 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.D.KRISHNAN, SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SRI.RAJA KANNAN
For the Respondents: SMT.RESMITHA R CHANDRAN
The assessing authority must consider justifiable reasons for the delayed submission of necessary documentation to ensure fair tax assessment.
Headnote:(A) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 6A - Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Assessment of inter-State stock transfer - The petitioner sought to quash the assessment for non-production of Form-F. The Court noted the delay in submission and the submission of additional Forms-F was overlooked. An opportunity to present these forms was deemed essential considering the circumstances surrounding the operational disruption of the petitioner’s unit. The Court directed the assessing authority to reassess in light of the principle of fair assessment considering justifiable reasons for the delay. (Paras 3, 20, 21)
(B) Tax assessment - Principles of fair assessment - An assessing authority is obliged to consider justifiable reasons for the late production of necessary proofs to avoid excessive taxation supposedly contrary to legislative intent. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an assessment order claiming it was based on incomplete evidence due to procedural delays beyond its control and requested reconsideration with timely submissions now produced.
Findings of Court:
The assessment made was procedurally flawed due to disregard of justifications for delayed submissions of Form-F, warranting a fresh assessment of tax.
Issues: The core issue was whether the assessing authority was justified in not considering the late submission of Forms-F and if sufficient cause for delay was established.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that authorities must act judiciously and consider late submissions if justified, specifically under procedural rules allowing for such considerations to facilitate fair assessments.
Result: Writ petition allowed; previous order set aside, and reassessment directed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contesting assessment based on late form-f submission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. government argues for adherence to procedural timelines. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court allows reassessment taking into account delayed submission reasons. (Para 7 , 12 , 17) |
| 4. court underscores need for equitable assessment consideration. (Para 10 , 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. discusses procedural rules regarding timely submission of tax proofs. (Para 13 , 15 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner, an incorporated Company and an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 , is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 2nd respondent- Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider an assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent completed assessment of the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 2013-'14 by assessing the turnover of inter-State stock transfer at ₹20,00,95,588/- at the rate of 5% for non-production of Form-F, as per Ext.P1 Assessment Order dated 12.10.2015. The said assessment was made overlooking the fact that the officer who initiated assessment had given time to the petitioner for producing Form-F.
3. The petitioner hence filed W.P.(C) No.38553 of 2015, which was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.12.2015 permitting the petitioner to file Form-F within one week and directing the 2nd respondent to reassess the tax. The petitioner produced Form-F to the tune of ₹15,52,67,558/- within one week, by 25.12.2015. The petitioner further produced Form-F for ₹66,05,067/- as per Ext.P3 letter dated 07.01.2016 and for ₹46,88,916/- as per Ext.P4 letter dated 21.01.2016. The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P5 fresh assessment order dated 30.03.2016, considering Form-F for ₹15,52,67,558/- only.
4. Exts.P3 and P4 Forms-F were ignored while passing Ext.P5. The petitioner hence filed Ext.P6 rectification application dated 22.06.2016. The petitioner states that apart from Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner holds Form-F for turnover of ₹1,03,38,782/- and ₹22,13,327/-, as detailed in Ext.P7 Statement. The petitioner states that the non-production of Forms-F in time was for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. From 2013-'14, the operation of Palakkad Unit of the Company was completely discontinued and all assessment related work had to be handled from Bangalore. It was difficult for the petitioner to retrieve Forms from the closed Unit at Palakkad. The 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P5 order in a mechanical manner.
5. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The petitioner has an alternate remedy against the assessment order, it was pointed out. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1500], urged the Government Pleader.
6. This Court, in Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.12.2015, granted one week time to the petitioner to make available Form-F with a rectification application. The respondents were directed to pass a fresh assessment order expeditiously. The period stipulated by this Court for submission of Form-F expired on 25.12.2015. The petitioner produced Form-F only for a turnover of ₹15,52,67,558/-, which was taken into account while passing Ext.P5 order.
7. The 2nd respondent is not bound to consider any Form-F produced by the petitioner subsequently. This Court, in Ext.P2 judgment, directed that a fresh assessment “shall be made expeditiously”. Hence, Ext.P5 order was passed on 30.03.2016. The petitioner has to blame itself for non-production of Forms even within the extended time.
8. The Government Pleader pointed out that in the judgment in Kochi Refineries Ltd. V. State of Kerala [ 2011 (4) KLT SN 123 ], this Court
