SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
HOTEL VETTIKATTU PLAZA, NEENDOOR -P.O, KOTTAYAM – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM EAST – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9483 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AJI V.DEV, SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV, SRI.S.SAJEEVAN
For the Respondents: SMT JASMINE, GP

The imposition of interest under the KGST Act for delayed tax payments during the pandemic was deemed unjustifiable due to prior ambiguities in tax regulations.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case pertains to the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST), 1963. Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenges the imposition of interest under Ext.P4 assessment order for the tax year 2000-21 due to confusion relating to tax rates during Covid-19.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the demand for interest cannot be sustained as the petitioner had paid taxes based on the applicable rates.

Issues: The key questions involved the clarity of tax rates during lockdown and the legality of imposing interest for delayed payments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the imposition of interest was unjustifiable given the changes in tax rate interpretations.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside Ext.P4 and instructing the authority to issue fresh orders in line with prior judgments.

Table of Content
1. challenge to assessment under kgst for delayed interest. (Para 1)
2. court examined the arguments regarding tax rate confusion. (Para 2)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, a bar attached hotel, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P4 assessment order for the assessment year 2000-21 to the extent of the imposition of interest under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST), 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

2. I have heard Sri. Aji V. Dev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Jasmine, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The interest under the provisions of Section

23(3) of the Act has been imposed by Ext.P4 for the delay in satisfaction of tax with reference to the retail sales/counter sales of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) during the Covid- 19 lockdown period. There was some confusion as regards the tax rate to be satisfied with reference to the aforementioned periods since counter sales were taxable only at the rate of 5%. The clarity has been made by the Government only by the amendment carried out in the year

2022, stating that the liability to satisfy the tax at the rate of 5% would be from 2022. Insofar as the petitioner has paid tax at the rate of 5 percentage with reference to the outer time limit for payment of tax as fixed by the Government as above, I am of the opinion that the demand of interest by Ext.P4 cannot be sustained.

In this regard, I also take note of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No.32408 of 2023. Therefore, the writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P4 and directing the assessing authority concerned to pass fresh orders after taking note of the principles laid down by this Court in aforementioned Judgment.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top