A.M. Abdulla vs. State Of Kerala

The revision petitioner is effecting inter-state sales of arecanut to various parties outside the state of Kerala at concessional rate of tax against C Form declaration issued by the purchasers. For the year 2012-13, the petitioner has paid at a concessional rate and the assessment for the said years has been completed accepting the declaration filed by order dated 12.2.15 and 14.9.2017. OT.REV NO. 72 OF 2022 -3- The Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, cancelled the assessments suo-motu under section 56 of KVAT alleging that few of the C Forms submitted by the revision petitioners are bogus, and passed an order under Section 56 on 20.3.2018. The revision petitioner filed an application under section 59 before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The Commissioner, by order dated 5.4.2021 confirmed the cancellation of the assessment rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner. The following questions of law are raised for consideration before this court: “A: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application for revision filed by the petitioner? B: Ought not the Commissioner have found that the revision petitioner was not granted sufficient time to submit the clarifications in respect of C Forms? C: Has not the Commissioner erred in not following the information available on the TINXSYS website which OT.REV NO. 72 OF 2022 -4- proves the validity of the C Forms?”

Heard Adv.Harishankar V Menon, for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

The dealer filed objection on 17.3.2018 and requested 30 days time to get the details of the commercial tax authorities of the related states to produce the c forms to rebut that the c forms are not bogus. The deputy commissioner did not grant any time and the order was passed on 20.3.2018. Before the commissioner also the revision petitioner produced Anx B and C (C Forms) downloaded from website of the department to show that the C forms are not bogus and genuine. But The commissioner in the order stated that the revision petitioner has produced two photocopies of C forms and OT.REV NO. 72 OF 2022 -5- requested for time to prove the genuineness of the C forms. Though sufficient time was given to prove the genuineness the petitioner did not succeed hence the commissioner found that the 2 C forms produced from the side of the revision petitioner are bogus and it do not relate to the assessment years 2010-11. Going through Anx.A and D orders, it can be seen that the request of the petitioner to substantiate that the C Forms produced are not bogus and genuine, no opportunity was given by both the authorities. The petitioner has produced Anex.C and D before the Commissioner. Taking note of the fact that no time was granted by both the authorities, we are of the considered opinion that denial of opportunity to prove his case result in manifest resjudicata and hence, we set aside Annex.A and D orders.

Since the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and the Commissioner of State Goods and Service Tax Department are set aside, we remit the matter to the Joint Commissioner for consideration afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner/dealer is granted two weeks time to file an additional reply and any additional document in support his contentions. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Joint Commissioner on 15.9.2022 for consideration and disposal of the case, in accordance with law. The Revision is disposed of as above.