M/S. G.K. Granites LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, State Goods & Service Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT In exercise of the power under Section 7(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act (the Act), the asssessing authority of the petitioners has suo motu amended the certificate of registration of the petitioners under the Act and revoked the authorization granted to effect interstate purchase of fuel with effect from 01.07.2017. Ext.P7 in W.P.(C.) No.10221 of 2018 is the order issued to the petitioner therein in this connection. A similar order has been issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.10222 of 2018 also. The petitioners challenged the said orders in appeal before the second respondent. The said appeals stand dismissed on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said
W.P.(C) Nos. 10221 & 10222 of 2018 -2- orders and hence these writ petitions.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.
As noted above, orders impugned in the appeals preferred by the petitioners are orders issued under Section 7(4) of the Act. In the light of the provision contained in Section 9(2) of the Act, the remedy of the petitioners against the orders issued under Section 7(4) of the Act, has to be determined with reference to the provisions contained in the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act). The provision corresponding to Section 7(4) of the Act in the VAT Act is Section 16(10). The question to be examined, therefore, is whether an appeal lies under the VAT Act against an order issued under Section 16(10). It is seen that Section 55(1) of the VAT Act dealing with the right of appeal against orders issued under the said statute has been amended in terms of the provisions contained in the Finance Act, 2017. Section 55(1) of the VAT Act, as amended in terms of Finance Act,
W.P.(C) Nos. 10221 & 10222 of 2018 -3- 2017 without its provisos, reads thus: “(1) Any person aggrieved by any order issued or proceedings recorded other than those under sub-section (3), sub- section (8) or sub-section (9) of section 16 and sub-section (8) of section 19 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, (i) to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), if the order was passed by the authority of the rank of an Assistant Commissioner; and (ii) to the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), if the order was passed by an authority of the rank of a Commercial Tax Officer.” In the light of the aforesaid amended provision, the petitioners are entitled to prefer appeals challenging the orders issued under Section 7(4) of the Act. It is seen that the impugned orders have been rendered without taking note of the amendment introduced to Section 55(1) of the VAT Act in terms of the provisions contained in Finance Act, 2017. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the second respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the appeals preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law, after affording the W.P.(C) Nos. 10221 & 10222 of 2018 -4- petitioners an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE SKS
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.