Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45765
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
M/S PANASONIC INDIA PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 37264/2016
The appropriate remedy for addressing missing invoice uploads during tax assessments lies with the first appellate authority, not the court.
Headnote:
Taxation - Inter-state branch transfer - Various sections related to assessment procedure - The court upheld that the appeal should be made before the first appellate authority regarding non-uploading of invoices, establishing the process for rectifying assessment issues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner failed to upload a crucial invoice for inter-state purchases in the returns filed for the assessment year 2012-13. The application for revising the returns was rejected, leading to a contention regarding suppression of purchases.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the petitional contention that the turnover was included in the returns despite the missing invoice, indicating that the first appellate authority could review the case without being bound by prior findings from the Commissioner.
Issues: Whether the omission of invoice uploads constituted suppression and what avenues were available for remedying this issue post-assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the first appellate authority is the appropriate venue to address the issue of missing uploads and potential rectification, emphasizing the procedural aspects of tax assessments.
Final Decision: The petitions were closed with the opportunity for the petitioner to appeal the assessment order.
JUDGMENT
In W.P.(C) 37264 of 2016, the petitioner, is concerned with one inter-state branch transfer, coming to Rs.9,97,642/- in the assessment year 2012-13. The contention raised is that the petitioner omitted to upload the invoice bearing No.25372 dated 23.12.2012; but has included the value in the returns filed for the year. The petitioner requested for uploading of the said invoice as per Exhibit P1 and also approached the Commissioner for issuance of “C” Forms. By Exhibit P3, the Commissioner rejected the prayer, finding that the application for revising the monthly returns has been rejected by the Assessing Officer.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to his instruction, invoices of the entire purchases included in the returns have been uploaded and the difference comes to only Rupees One lakh. The purchase now projected is of more than Rs. 9 lakhs; which is a clear suppression is the argument.
connected cases
3. As of now, it is submitted that the assessment for the year has been completed by order dated 22.02.2017. The returns were rejected for absence of one single invoice and also additions were made on that count treating it as a suppression. The assessment order has not been challenged here. An appeal is maintainable against the assessment order. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in fact the turnover has been included in the return; but the uploading of the invoice alone was omitted to be done. If that be so, the petitioner has to urge that contention before the first appellate authority who could look into the returns and the value difference in the invoices uploaded. If the invoice is found to have been included in the returns, then necessarily the first appellate authority could also direct the Assessing Officer to permit uploading of the invoice by the petitioner. The first appellate authority would be entitled to look into this specific aspect untrammelled by the findings of the Commissioner at Exhibit P3; especially since the Commissioner rejected the request only for reason of the revision of returns having been rejected by the Assessing Officer.
connected cases
4. In such circumstance, leaving open the remedy to approach the first appellate authority against the assessment order now passed, W.P.(C) No.37264 would stand closed.
5. W.P.(C) Nos.37406 of 2016 and 37252 of 2016 are with relation to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14 respectively. In the assessment year 2011-12, it is submitted that invoice for Rs.8,77,612/- [Invoice No.15372 of July 2011] has not been uploaded . In the year 2013-14 also three invoices, produced as Exhibit P1-6, P1-7 and P1-8, were omitted to be uploaded. In both the years, the petitioner's contention is that there is no revision of returns required; but, however, the invoices have to be uploaded.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that these are suppressed purchases. The returns for the months in which the invoices are said to have been omitted to be uploaded, indicates that the total inter-State purchases and stock transfer returned are supported by the uploaded invoices. There can, hence, be no further uploading in accordance with the returns, is the specific contention taken.
connected cases
7. These are all contentions the petitioner could urge before the Assessing Officer and it may not be proper for this Court to direct an uploading of the invoices. However, it is made clear that if returns for the specific months in which the invoices are said to have been omitted to be uploaded included the value of the invoices alleged to have been omitted, then necessarily the Assessing Officer could permit uploading of the invoices.
8. W.P.(C) Nos.37406 of 2016 and 37252 of 2016 would stand closed leaving open remedy to the assessee as indicated above.
9. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the case.
