Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company LTD. vs. State Of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, McNally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., engaged in works contract and opted for a composition scheme, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated December 28, 2018, pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The petitioner sought directions to issue C-Forms. The petitioner, whose head office is in Kolkata, had inadvertently missed reporting certain inter-state purchases made for works contracts in Kerala while filing returns. These purchases were eligible for concessional tax against C-Forms. The petitioner made representations for revision of returns, which were rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer (WC) based on a circular dated November 21, 2017. A subsequent request for C-Forms for disputed purchases remained unadjudicated. The petitioner argued that the alternative remedy of appeal was not available as C-Forms were not issued, preventing them from availing the remedy against the rejection orders.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed. The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the revisional orders dated December 28, 2018, for approximately one and a half years. The Court found that the petitioner's argument of making a new representation for C-Forms to overcome the order of revision and agitating a fresh cause of action was unsustainable. The Court observed that the revisional orders indicated that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to provide documents regarding inter-state purchases, but no supporting documents were filed, despite reconciliation statements revealing omissions. Unlike the cited judgment in Eveready Industries, where an audit report was overlooked, in this case, the petitioner failed to provide documents even after being given an opportunity. The Court also found no explanation for the delay in availing the appropriate remedy. Therefore, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea to remit the matter back to the authority for disclosure of documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek revision of returns and issuance of C-Forms for inadvertently omitted inter-state purchases, despite the rejection of their request by the Commercial Tax Officer based on Circular No. 14 of 2017 (dated 21.11.2017)? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the omission of purchases was inadvertent and did not alter the total turnover or tax already conceded. They argued that the circular dated November 21, 2017, did not preclude revision in such cases. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgment in Eveready Industries India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner and Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 12478 of 2018), which allowed revision of returns in similar circumstances where the omission was technical or clerical and did not affect the conceded turnover or tax paid. They also argued that the alternative remedy of appeal was unavailable due to the non-issuance of C-Forms. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that there was no provision on the website portal for issuing C-Forms and the only remedy was to seek revision of returns and then apply for C-Forms manually. They contended that the cited judgment in Eveready Industries was distinguishable from the present case. The revenue also raised an objection regarding the delay in challenging the revisional orders dated December 28, 2018, and the petitioner's failure to provide supporting documents for the inter-state purchases.