Js Fusion Industries Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNE AY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WA.No.2180 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-2019 IN WP(C) 25066/2019(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S.BRIDGE HYGIENE SRVICES PVT LTD., VII/550, THANIKKALPADY, VADAVANTHOOR, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAJAN MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW PEEDIKAYIL JOSHUA, AGED 53. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, SGST DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.2182/2019, WA.2184/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNE AY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WA.No.2182 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-2019 IN WP(C) 25059/2019(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. JS FUSION INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 542, 542A, 542B, FOCUS TOWER, PAROLICKAL JUNCTION, ATHIRAMPUZHA - 686 562, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOHN T.A., S/O.T.ABRAHAM, AGED 51 YEARS. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPARTMENT, MANGARAKALUNGU, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR - 686 631. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 002. OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP. SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.2180/2019, WA.2184/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNE AY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WA.No.2184 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-2019 IN WP(C) 25067/2019(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S.MANGOMEADOWS AGRICULTURAL PLEASURE LAND (P) LTD. AYAMKUDY,KADUTHURUTHY PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.K. KURIAN, S/O. KURIAKOSE THOMAS, AGED 48 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SGST DEPARTMENT, MANGARAKALUNGU, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR-686 631 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPAPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002 OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP.SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, ALONG WITH WA.2180/2019, WA.2182/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -4- S. MANIKUMAR, C.J. & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A. Nos. 2180, 2182 & 2184 OF 2019 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J: Orders of assessment made under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') with respect to different assessees for different periods in the financial year 2018-2019 & 2019-2020, were under challenge in the respective writ petitions concerned with these appeals. The appellants/assesses sought to quash the orders of assessment by mainly contending that, the impugned orders does not reflect, details of the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer to make the best judgment assessment, as contemplated under Section 62 (1) of the Act. In other words, the contention is that, the impugned orders were passed in a quite mechanical manner, without proper application of mind. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the writ petitions found that the appellants have even failed to take advantage of the provisions contained in
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -5- sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, by furnishing valid returns within 30 days after receipt of the impugned orders of assessment, which if done could have saved them from the liability under the impugned orders. It is further found that, it may not be possible for the court to exercise the juri iction under Article 226 in order to extend the time limit stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 62, for enabling the appellants to file the returns, beyond the period of 30 days stipulated. It is observed that, the prescription of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of assessment passed under sub-section (1) of Section 62, stipulated under sub-section (2), has to be strictly construed, since it is a provision contained in a taxing statute which enables the assessee to get the order passed against him on best judgment assessment basis, set aside. Based on the findings as mentioned above, the learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitions deserves no merit and accordingly they were dismissed.
In these writ appeals the assessees have raised contention that the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the returns submitted for the previous periods, are not legally
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -6- correct and is improper. It is pointed out that, while passing the impugned orders of assessment in the printed format, the Assessing Authority had failed to look into the available details contained in the returns filed for the previous periods.
Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is pointed out that against the impugned orders of assessment the appellants have got an effective remedy of appeal, as provided under Section 107 of the Act. It is also argued that there exists no special circumstances warranting interference of this court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to bypass such alternative remedy, which is more effective in nature.
We are not prima facie convinced that there exists any special circumstances warranting interference of this court to hold that the impugned assessments are per se illegal or unsustainable. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the assesses herein had committed default continuously in filing the returns, in responding to the notices requiring them to file the returns, in responding to the notice proposing best judgment assessments etc. Even after receipt of the impugned orders of
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -7- assessment, they failed to avail the remedy provided under sub- section (2) of Section 62. Under such circumstances we cannot entertain the challenges raised against the best judgment assessments finalized. Eventhough the details of the materials available before the assessing authority is not explained in the order, it can only be presumed that the best judgment assessment was completed on the basis of the materials available with the Assessing Officer. However, we take note of the fact that, against the impugned orders the appellants have got an effective remedy by way of statutory appeal. There exists no circumstances to quash the impugned orders in exercise of the juri iction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by permitting the appellants to bypass such effective remedy available.
Therefore we are not persuaded to admit the above writ appeals. Consequently the writ appeals are dismissed in limine.
It is made clear that the impugned judgments of the Single Judge or the above judgment will not stand in the way of the appellants availing alternative remedy against the impugned
WA Nos.2180, 2182 & 2184/2019 -8- assessments. If the appellants choose to avail such remedy, the appellate authority concerned shall deal with the appeals independently, untramelled by any of the observations contained in the impugned judgments or in this common judgment in the writ appeals. S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG
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.