M/S. Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. State Of Kerala
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 8TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.20860 OF 2019(F) PETITIONER: M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED 24/1624, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-TAXATION, MR.V.V.N.PRABHU. BY ADVS. SR. ADV. SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SMT.S.PARVATHI RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VAT SPECIAL CIRCLE(PRODUCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(NOW STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT), MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. 3 THE STATE TAX OFFICER(WC), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, CLASS TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, OLD RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SGST DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-682 002. BY DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.20860 OF 2019(F) 2 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.E.K. Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader for respondents.
The petitioner challenges Exts. P8 and P9 order and demand respectively to the extent the order is against the petitioner. The first and foremost ground of challenge is that the turnover amounting to Rs. 9,75,30,007/- is assessed both under the Kerala Value Added Tax and the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner aggrieved by the inclusion of Rs. 9,75,30,007/-, which according to the petitioner amounts double taxation has filed the instant writ petition. In Ext.P8 order, a few of the entries are concluded favourably in favour of petitioner. But the objection of the petitioner is that the grounds raised in Exts.P4 and P5 on this aspect of matter firstly are not adverted to and secondly, the findings recorded against the case of the petitioner for all purposes slur over the substantial objections raised by the petitioner.
The learned Government Pleader from the material on record attempts to substantiate that the ground of double taxation raised by the petitioner is without merit. She prays for dismissing the writ petition and the petitioner
WP(C).No.20860 OF 2019(F) 3 may be given liberty to workout relief by filing statutory appeal. To the pointed query of the Court whether Ext.P8 could be treated as an order which speaks for itself and there exists independent consideration of reply offered by the respondents. The learned Government Pleader re-read the order in Ext.P8 and left it to Court to appreciate whether it conveys or does not convey.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P8. A bare look at these exhibits demonstrates that the objections raised by the Senior Counsel on the mode and manner of examination by respondents is tenable. On the short ground of non- consideration of all the points raised in Exts.P4 and P5, order in Ext.P8 could be set aside. Accordingly, Ext.P8 on the short ground of non-consideration of objections in Exts.P4 and P5 is set aside and the matter restored to the file of the second respondent for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with law.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent on 19.09.2019 at 11.A.M. The petitioner is also given liberty to supplement the details already furnished, if so advised on 19.09.2019. The enquiry on 19.09.2019 is re-considered to the extent of
WP(C).No.20860 OF 2019(F) 4 Rs. 9,75,30,007/-. All the objections available in this behalf are left open for consideration, firstly by the second respondent. The petitioner, if is finally aggrieved by the decision taken in this behalf, it is free to work out the remedies available in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE DCS
WP(C).No.20860 OF 2019(F) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE NOTICE DATED 15.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 6(5) OF THE CST KERALA RULES, 1975 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE REPLY (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 10.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THEOF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 6(5) OF THE CST KERALA RULES 1957 FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013. EXHIBIT P4 THEOF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 22.04.2019. EXHIBIT P5 THEOF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 03.05.2019. EXHIBIT P6 THEOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.03.2017 RELATING TO THE YEAR 2012-2013 UNDER THE KVAT ACT ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT P7 THEOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.05.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C)NO.13549/2019. EXHIBIT P8 THEOF THE MODIFIED ORDER DATED 10.07.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 THEOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.07.2019 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 THEOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2015 IN ROOTS MULTICLEAN LTD. VS. CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN 2016 (336) ELT 25 (MAD), (2016) 54 GST 100 (MADRAS), MANU/TN/4233/2015.
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.