Ubaidullah.E.P vs. State Of Kerala
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order for 2012-2013 and pre-assessment notices for 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016. He had requested to revise his returns to correct discrepancies before the assessment order for 2012-2013 was passed, and sought similar relief for the subsequent years where assessments were pending.
Held
The Court held that for the 2012-2013 assessment year, since the assessment order was already passed, the petitioner must pursue the alternate remedy of appeal under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. For the years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, where assessments were pending and no penal proceedings were initiated, the Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to revise his returns by opening the KVAT web portal for one week, after which fresh assessments would be completed.
Key Issues
The key issues were whether an assessee could revise returns after an assessment order was passed, and whether an assessee should be permitted to revise returns for pending assessment years before finalization, especially when no penal proceedings were initiated.
Sections Cited
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a non-resident Indian, has started an automobile service station at Wandoor in Nilambur in Malappuram District. The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 assessment order passed against him for the assessment year 2012-2013 and Exts.P7, P8 and P9 pre-assessment notices that have been issued to him for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. It is the case the of the petitioner that even before Ext.P6 assessment order was passed he had preferred a request for revising the returns filed for the said years so as to correct certain discrepancies that had occurred while filing the returns. It is notwithstanding the specific request made by him and without considering the same that Ext.P6 assessment order came to be passed and it is the apprehension of the petitioner that a similar fate will follow in respect of assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, where the adjudication proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7, P8 and P9 notices are yet to be completed.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as WP(C).No.14731 OF 2019(N) 3 also the submissions made across the bar, I find that inasmuch as for the assessment year 2012-2013 Ext.P6 assessment order has been passed completing the assessment in relation to the petitioner for the said year, permitting the petitioner to now revise his returns for the said year would not be possible. For the said year, the petitioner has to be relegated to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority for urging his contentions on the merits of the case. To enable the petitioner to pursue his appellate remedy as above, I direct that if the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P6 order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the appellate authority shall consider the same as one filed within time and proceed to consider the stay application preferred by the petitioner on merits. The recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P6 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the appellate authority in the stay application to be filed by the petitioner for the said assessment year. It is made clear that if the appeal and stay petition are not filed within the time granted in this judgment, the petitioner will lose the benefit of the judgment.
As regards the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, I find that the proceedings are now at the stage where Exts.P7, P8 and P9 pre-assessment notices have been issued and the WP(C).No.14731 OF 2019(N) 4 assessment is yet to be completed. It is not in dispute that there are no penal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the said assessment years, and further, that the petitioner had in fact made a request for revising his return before the respondents. As has already been noticed by this Court in the decision reported in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-I, State goods and Services Tax Department and Others [(2018) 58 GSTR 147 (Kerala)], when an assessee comes forward to revise his return before the Department at a stage when the assessment proceedings for that particular year are not completed, and further, there is no penal proceedings initiated against the assessee, the request must be seen as one preferred by an honest assessee to correct a mistake that he had noticed in the returns submitted by him. Taking a stand hostile to the assessee, in such matters, would not augur well for the tax administration of the State, for it would tantamount to punishing an honest assessee and render the tax administration an inherently unfair one. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner in the instant case must be afforded an opportunity to revise his returns for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The respondents shall therefore do the needful to open the web portal of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) so as to enable the petitioner to upload the revised return for the assessment years in question. The 2nd
WP(C).No.14731 OF 2019(N) 5 respondent shall ensure that the Web portal of the KVAT is open for a period of one week after intimation to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to revise the returns as aforesaid. The assessment of the petitioner for the said years shall be completed only thereafter, and after issuing fresh pre-assessment notices based on the revised returns filed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is thus disposed by rejecting the challenge against Ext.P6 assessment order and relegating the petitioner to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act against the said order, and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise the returns for the other assessment years (2013-14 to 2015-16) in the manner suggested above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE mns
WP(C).No.14731 OF 2019(N) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE NO 32100982571/2012- 13 DATED 20.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KERALA FINANCE BILL, 2019. EXHIBIT P3OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 2/2019 DATED 8.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE REPLY DATED 13.2.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REPLY DATED 30.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32100982571/2012-13 DATED 8.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7OF THE NOTICE NO. 32100982571/2013- 14 DATED 12-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8OF THE NOTICE NO. 32100982571/2014- 15 DATED 12-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9OF THE NOTICE NO. 32100982571/2015- 16 DATED 12-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10OF THE STATEMENT DATED 28.2.2019 WITH TAX IMPACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE
WP(C).No.14731 OF 2019(N) 7
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.