N.M.Basheer vs. Authority For Clarification Under Section 94 Of The Kerala Value Added Tax Act
Held
The Court held that the clarification order dated August 22, 2017 (Annexure-VIII), which was based on the original text of S.R.O. No. 753/2011, has been superseded by the amendment introduced through S.R.O. No. 521/2019 dated August 7, 2019. The Court reasoned that the amendment effectively alters the position established by the earlier clarification. Therefore, for cases applicable to S.R.O. No. 753/2011 read with S.R.O. No. 521/2019, only the latest amendment is applicable. The Court declared that the clarification order No. CT/815/17-C3 dated August 22, 2017, is superseded by S.R.O. No. 521/2019. The appeal was disposed of in light of this finding.
Facts
The appellant, N.M. Basheer, a proprietor engaged in the purchase of natural rubber, filed an appeal against a clarification order dated August 22, 2017, issued by the Authority for Clarification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. This order, referencing S.R.O. No. 753/2011, clarified that interstate sales of rubber procured from agriculturists should have suffered VAT, with a 0% CST rate applicable with 'C' Form. It also stated that no input tax credit or special rebate would be available, nor any refund of tax paid on purchases. During the pendency of the appeal, the Government issued S.R.O. No. 521/2019 on August 7, 2019, amending S.R.O. No. 753/2011.
Key Issues
1. Whether the clarification order dated August 22, 2017, issued by the Authority for Clarification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, stands superseded by the subsequent amendment introduced through S.R.O. No. 521/2019. The petitioner contended that the amendment through S.R.O. No. 521/2019 effectively nullifies the earlier clarification. The petitioner argued that the latest amendment is the operative one for cases falling under S.R.O. No. 753/2011. The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, did not appear to have made any specific arguments against this position, as the judgment notes the attention of the court was invited to the operative portion of the clarification and the subsequent amendment.
Sections Cited
Section 8, Section 94
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1943 OT.APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER NO. CT/ 815/17-C3 DTD 22.08.2017 OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION APPELLANT/S: N.M.BASHEER PROPRIETOR, N.M.BROTHERS, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, CHEEMENI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT/S: AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION UNDER SECTION 94 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.GP.V.K SHAMSUDHEEN THIS OTHER TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OT.APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2017 -2- JUDGMENT S.V.Bhatti,J. The instant appeal is filed under Sec.62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant is a registered dealer
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.