Kerala High Court
M/S.Trichur Auto Spares vs The Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 39359 of 2016 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
M/S.TRICHUR AUTO SPARES,
MARAIKAL KANNARA P.O,
THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
A.V ULAHANNAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),
COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE,
THRISSUR - 680 004.
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 39359 of 2016 (T)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF AUDITED STATEMENT IN FORM NO 13 & 13A OF
THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF AUDITED STATEMENT IN FORM NO 13 & 13A OF
THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13
DATED 6.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 28.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR
2012-13 DATED 31.10.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 39359 of 2016
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 by which the assessment had been completed for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the pre-assessment notice was issued as Ext.P3 in which was indicated that the conceded local purchase was Rs.2,95,79,369/- as per the annual return whereas in the audited statement, the local purchase conceded was Rs.1,82,80,267/-. Since no reconciliation statement was filed for the differential turnover, proposal was made to make the assessment pursuant to the same. Petitioner in the reply submitted that the correct figure is Rs.2,95,79,369/-. But, mistake occurred in the audited statement which was an inadvertent error while uploading the data for the year 2012-
13. Instead of the data for the said year, the figures uploaded W.P.(C) No. 39359 of 2016 -2- were pertaining to the year 2011-12. Petitioner also produced Form 13 A for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, while passing Ext.P5 order of assessment, the officer did not accept the said contention. It is submitted that insofar as no revised return or reconciliation statement were filed by the dealer along with the audited statement as required under Section 42 (2) of the KVAT Act, 2003, within the prescribed time limit, the dealer cannot be permitted to revise the return.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake pointed out was clearly evident, as all the figures which had been uploaded was relating to the year 2011-12, whereas the petitioner had in their returns disclosed the purchase of Rs.2,95,79,369/-, which is much higher than the return that was uploaded in the audited statement. However, the officer did not take into consideration the said mistake purely on the ground that an opportunity cannot be granted for revising the audit statement.
W.P.(C) No. 39359 of 2016 -3-
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who supports the stand taken by the officer concerned.
5. But it is relevant to note that in an instance where a mistake is glaring from the factual aspects itself, noting prevents the officer to make the assessment taking note of such a mistake as well. In the case on hand, it is evident that all the particulars given in the audit statement was pertaining to the year 2011-12. Merely for the reason that the audited statement was not corrected within the specified time does not mean that the officer cannot, while adjudicating an assessment for the year 2012-13, take cognizance of such errors and pass a proper order of assessment. Of course it has to be shown that the mistake was genuine and supporting material will have to be produced by the dealer to prove the said fact. In the case on hand, the petitioner had produced Form 13 A of 2011-12 and 2012-13 to prove the said facts. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that when a genuine mistake is committed by the dealer, necessarily, the assessing officer W.P.(C) No. 39359 of 2016 -4- will have to take cognizance of such a mistake and appropriate order has to be passed.
In the said circumstances, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be granted for the petitioner and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
(i) Ext.P5 is set aside.
(ii) The assessing officer shall reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and complete the assessment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Scl/19.12.2016