M/S. Siva Krishna Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant challenged an assessment order (Ext.P7) before a Single Judge, arguing that their claim for TRAN-1 credit of Rs.3,18,882/- was not considered. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the GST Act.
Held
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision to relegate the appellant to the appellate remedy. It clarified that if the Appellate Authority requires clarification from the 3rd respondent regarding TRAN-1 credit entitlement, the 3rd respondent shall furnish it to enable a decision on merits.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with an assessment order allegedly overlooking TRAN-1 credit, or if the petitioner should be directed to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner in WP(C). No.12177 of 2024 and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had approached the writ court through the Writ Petition aforementioned aggrieved by Ext.P7 assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that while passing Ext.P7 assessment order, the 2nd respondent had not considered the documents produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim in respect of TRAN - 1 credit of Rs.3,18,882/-.
The learned single Judge was of the view that this was a matter that could be considered by the Appellate Authority under the GST Act and in the absence of any juri ictional error on the part of the Assessing Authority it was not for the writ court to look into these aspects.
We have heard Sri. Santhosh P. Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. P.R. Sreejith, the learned Standing counsel
:3: WA No.526 of 2024 for the 3rd respondent, and Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 4. 4. While we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge that relegates the appellant to his appellate remedy under the statute against Ext.P7 assessment order, taking note of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant, we make it clear that in the event of the Appellate Authority requiring any clarification from the 3rd respondent with regard to the entitlement of the appellants to TRAN – 1 credit, the 3rd respondent shall furnish the required clarification so as to enable the Appellate Authority to consider
the appeal of the appellant against Ext.P7 assessment order, on merits. On his part, the appellant shall ensure that the appeal directed to be filed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is preferred within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Save for this limited clarification/modification, this Writ Appeal in its challenge against the impugned judgment is otherwise dismissed. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE mns
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.