Kerala High Court
M/S.Asian Plywood Industries vs Commercial Tax Officer on 29 February, 2016
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938
W.P.(C).No.5334 of 2017 (N)
----------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
----------------
M/S.ASIAN PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES , MEKALADY, KALADY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. ABDUL AZEES
BY ADVS.SRI.AJI V.DEV
SMT.O.A.NURIYA.
RESPONDENT(S):-
---------------
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY
PIN- 683 572
2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX COMPLEX,
BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY- 682 002
3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
TAX TOWERS, KALLIPPALAM,
KARAMANA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-02.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDDIN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.5334 of 2017 (N)
-------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
-------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 29-02-2016 REPORTING STOPPAGE OF BUSINESS
BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE
YEAR 2011-12 DATED 30-11-2016.
EXHIBIT P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE
YEAR 2012-13 DATED 30-11-2016
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN V.K.SREENIVASAN VS.
SALES TAX OFFICER (1999)7 KTR 356(KER).
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-
------------------------- NIL.
Vku/- [ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.5334 of 2017-N
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's challenge against Exhibits P2 and P2
(a) assessment orders is that the petitioner had closed the business and intimated the said fact to the Assessing Officer by Exhibit P1 e-mail dated 29.02.2016.
2. The petitioner is unable to show me any procedure by which on a mere e-mail sent by the assessee as an intimation of closure of business, the same can be reckoned by the Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the provision for discontinuance of dealership is available in sub-rule (27) of Rule 17, which reads as under:
"(27) Every registered dealer who discontinues or transfer his business or whose certificate of registration is otherwise cancelled shall, forthwith, surrender to the registering authority the certificate of registration and the copies thereof, if any, granted to him along with any unused statutory forms issued to him".
WP(C) No.5334 of 2017 - 2 -
Hence, a registered dealer who is desirous of discontinuing the business, has to surrender to the registering authority the certificate of registration and the copies thereof and also any unused statutory forms issued, which alone would enable the dealer to assert that the business was closed and no further transactions had occurred. These type of e-mail sent cannot be reckoned by the Assessing Officer and this could also lead to further business being carried on by the dealer based on a valid registration certificate and subsequent argument being raised as to the closure of the business. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the assessment order on the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]