A.M. Abdulla vs. The State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, A.M. Abdulla, proprietor of M/s. A & M Exports, challenged an order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax. This order, exercising revisional powers under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, cancelled assessment orders dated 12.02.2015 and 14.09.2017, which were passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh assessment orders for the year 2012-13 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner's grievance before the High Court was that no fresh assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Authority since the remand.
Held
The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax. The reasoning was that the Joint Commissioner had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh orders. The Court also noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court after a delay of more than a year. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to resort to any available statutory remedy against the impugned order if such a remedy exists. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the dismissal implies no relief was granted on the petitioner's primary grievance regarding the delay in fresh assessment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, in exercise of revisional powers under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, erred in cancelling the assessment orders dated 12.02.2015 and 14.09.2017 and remitting the matter for fresh assessment for the year 2012-13 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite the remand order by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, no fresh assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Authority to date. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, did not present any specific arguments on the merits of the Joint Commissioner's order. Their stance was implicitly that the order was valid and the petitioner should pursue statutory remedies if available.
Sections Cited
Section 56
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH THUR AY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3511 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:
A.M. ABDULLA AGED 43 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. A & M EXPORTS, MANATHALA BEACH ROAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506
BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, CHAVAKKAD - THRISSUR, PIN - 680506 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST SGST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 -2-
OTHER PRESENT:
JASMINE M.M.-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
J U D G M E N T
Heard Mr Harisankar V Menon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
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.