Skm Animal Feeds And Foods (INDIA) (P) Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Petitioner is a trader of poultry and cattle feeds. It was an assessee under the KVAT Act and had filed its return for the month of July, 2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 on 30.08.2016. Later, when one of the suppliers of the petitioner requested for issuance of the necessary 'F' forms, petitioner noticed a clerical mistake in the return submitted. Immediately on coming to know about the aforesaid mistake, which in fact only related to the duplication in the number of documents submitted along with the return, petitioner applied to rectify the defect noticed. Pursuant to the said application for rectification, a notice was issued proposing to reject the application alleging expiry of the time for revision of return. Though petitioner had objected to the said proposal by its letter of the same date, the assessing officer rejected the application relying on section 13 of the Kerala

A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent pointing out that as per the provisions of the KVAT Act, the request for revision of return has to be submitted within three months from the date of submitting return. However, after the introduction of GST, time was extended till 31.12.2020 to the dealers to submit their applications for revising the returns. It was also stated that petitioner had filed hard copies and supporting documents only on 25.11.2021 and thereafter, pursuant to the notice dated 08.12.2021 and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the assessing officer rejected the application since the time limit specified as per the amended Finance Act had expired. It was further pointed out that the first respondent acted in accordance with law and therefore there was no reason to interfere.

Sri.Harishankar V.Menon duly assisted by Smt.Krishna K. submitted that the mistake sought to be revised was only clerical in nature and that no prejudice would be caused to the department, if the said mistake is corrected. Learned counsel further submitted that great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the revision is not allowed since the petitioner will not be able to generate necessary 'F' forms against the stock transfer received by it, which in turn will prejudice the suppliers of the petitioner. Learned counsel

Smt.M.M.Jasmin, learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the impugned order is not perverse warranting an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the officer had only abided with the prescriptions in the statutory provisions fixing the last date for applying for revision of return as 31.12.2021. According to the learned Government Pleader, since the application was filed by the petitioner only on 22.07.2021, the assessing officer had no other alternative other than to reject the application.

Section 22 and Section 42 of the KVAT Act are the provisions that deals with revising of returns. As per Rule 22(4A) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 opportunity is granted to the assessee to revise the returns on detecting omissions within two months from the last day of the return period. Though the period stipulated in Rule 22(4A) is only two months from the last date of the return period in the decision in Alwaye Sugar Agency v. Asst. Commissioner (Assmnt) (2017 (4) KLT 794), this Court had observed that though the statute provides for a period of two months for revising the returns, the statutory provisions are silent with regard to the course of action to be adopted in relation to a dealer who had filed his returns and paid tax in accordance with the returns and who thereafter detected the omission in the returns filed. In such cases, where the dealer himself voluntarily comes forward to pay tax due to any mistake that

Similarly in the decision in Commercial Tax Officer v. Varghese (2018 (3) KLT 468) it was observed that the sole prohibition that is visible in the various statutory provisions was against revision of returns, if a dealer has been proceeded against for a defalcation or other offences. It was also observed that the tax officers must rise up from their mediocre mind set and facilitate finance and commerce, aiding the economic advancement of the Nation rather than reducing themselves to mere tax collectors of the State.

With the aforesaid observations in mind when the impugned order is appreciated, it can be noticed that the first respondent went on a rigid stance about the time limit for filing the revised returns. Though the Kerala Finance Act, 2020 stipulated revision of returns under section 42(2) of the Act only till 31.12.2020, the observations of this Court in the aforementioned decisions cannot be lost sight of. In the absence of any proceedings for defalcation or any other penal proceedings having been initiated against the dealer, the rigid stance on the time limit even under the amended Kerala Finance Act, 2020 for correcting the returns is not proper. In cases of mere clerical errors that had crept in, correction of which have no implication on the tax liability of an assessee, ought to be considered in a manner which enures to the benefit of not only the assessee but also to the State.

Considered in the light of the observations made in the above two judgments, it can be inferred that despite the amendment brought in by the Kerala Finance Act, 2002, prohibition or interdiction against revising the

Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P7 order dated 10.12.2021 issued by the first respondent and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to revise the return for the month of July, 2016 as applied for in the application dated 22.07.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/