Schindler INDIA PVT LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Schindler India Pvt Ltd., a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenged a communication dated 26.10.2019 (Ext.P3) issued by the Joint Commissioner (General), State Goods and Service Tax Department. The petitioner sought to revise its returns for the assessment year 2010-11 due to technical errors that prevented the generation of Form F for interstate branch transfers. The petitioner had inadvertently uploaded interstate purchase invoices twice. Their request for revision was initially made on 11.05.2019 to the Assistant Commissioner. The impugned communication rejected the request, citing that revision is not permissible after audit and that the five-year period for finalizing assessments had expired. The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided and the rejection contravened the amended provisions of the second proviso to Section 42(2) of the Act, which permits revision after audit.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order Ext.P3 was unsustainable. It found that the order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court considered the amended provisions of the second proviso to Section 42(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which was introduced by the Finance Act of 2019. This proviso allows dealers who have filed audited statements of accounts to revise returns for periods up to June 2017, in respect of technical or clerical defects that do not affect the sales turnover or tax paid, provided they apply by 30th June 2018 and assessment proceedings have not been initiated. The Court noted that the respondents did not deny the introduction of this amendment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (1st respondent) for a fresh decision on the revision of returns. The petitioner was granted liberty to produce all necessary documents, and the exercise was to be completed within one month of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court's ratio decidendi is that statutory rejections must comply with natural justice and consider the prevailing statutory provisions, including amendments, at the time of decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for revision of returns for the assessment year 2010-11 is sustainable in law, considering the principles of natural justice and the relevant provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003? Petitioner's arguments: - The order Ext.P3 is unsustainable as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. - The rejection is contrary to the amended provisions of the second proviso to Section 42(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which permits revision of returns even after audit, subject to certain conditions. Respondents' arguments: - The five-year period for finalizing the assessment for the period 2010-11 has expired, making revision impossible. - The amendment to Section 42(2) of the Act, allowing revision after auditing statement of accounts and certification, was introduced later. - The respondents are not averse to granting an opportunity to the petitioner if the Court deems it appropriate.