M/S.Advanced Construction Technologies PVT. LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner - Kerala High Court, 03 July 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 21995 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S.ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD, DOOR NO.VII/267A,MALIAKAMPEEDIKA,ALANGAD VILLAGE, KOTTAPURAM KARA,PARAVUR-683511.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY MR.SIDDARTH RAMAN-AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III,STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,ERNAKULAM-682015. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)-II, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682015. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M.M. JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21995 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071171825/2012-13 DATED 04.07.2016,ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUND OF DECISION IN KVATA-3435/2016 DATED 267.03.2018,ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06TH JUNE,2018,ISSUED BY M/S.VOLVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE.` EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18TH JUNE,SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE das DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 21995 of 2018(Y) ======================================================= Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner's assessment for the year 2012-2013 was completed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act). The department demanded Rs.2,29,43,216/- towards tax and Rs.89,47,855/- towards interest as seen from Ext.P1 assessment order. In the statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent, through Ext.P2 appellate order, Ext.P1 stood modified.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner received Ext.P3 letter from it's principle supplier demanding 'C-forms' for Rs.6,69,80,886/- within fifteen days. Any failure on the petitioner's part will cause to legal action.

Under these circumstances, on 18.06.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 letter requesting the 1st respondent to modify Ext.P1 assessment order based on the directions in Ext.P2 appellate order. Today at the bar, the learned

-2- W.P.(C). No. 21995 of 2018 (Y) counsel for the petitioner, apart from drawing my attention to Ext.P2 appellate order, has also submitted that this Court on a similar circumstances rendered a judgment dated 6th June 2018 in W.A. No. 208 of 2018. According to him, keeping in view both Ext.P2 appellate order and the judgment now relied on, the 1st respondent ought to consider petitioner's Ext.P4 representation.

In turn, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the 1st respondent will consider petitioner's Ext.P4 representation and will pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition holding that the 1st respondent will consider petitioner's Ext.P4 representation and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, within two weeks. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das 03.07.2018