Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S. Paragon Steels Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (Assmt) on 27 November, 2015

Author: A.M.Shaffique

Bench: A.M.Shaffique

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

                TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

                                  WP(C).No. 27826 of 2016 (C)
                                      ----------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------

                     M/S. PARAGON STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,
                    IV/512A, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA,
                    KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD,
                    REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
                    V. KARUNAKARAN NAIR.


                     BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
                              SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN,
                              SMT.K.HYMAVATHY,
                              SRI.ARJUN S.RAJ.

RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------

        1.           THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT),
                     SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                     PALAKKAD-678 001.

        2.           THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL
                    APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD-678 004.

        3.           THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                     PALAKKAD-678 001.


                     BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (TAXES) SRI.U.E. UNNIKRISHNAN.


                    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
                    ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
                    FOLLOWING:
rs.

WP(C).No. 27826 of 2016 (C)

                                  APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY
                    1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013
                    DATED 27-11-2015.

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BY
                    2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013
                    DATED 10-03-2016.

EXHIBIT P3          TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
                    BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-06-2016.

EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE
                    PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
                    DATED 14-06-2016.

EXHIBIT P5          TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY
                    2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 21-07-2016.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN KVATA NO. 449/2013
                    DATED 14-03-2014.

EXHIBIT P7          TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7
                    OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY
                    3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 01-01-2016.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-         NIL.




                                                 //TRUE COPY//


                                                 P.S.TO JUDGE


rs.



                            A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
                           * * * * * * * * * * * *
                        W.P.C.No.27826 of 2016
                     ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 23rd day of August 2016


                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 by which the petitioner is called upon to remit 30% of the disputed dues assessed by the first appellate authority and to furnish security for the balance amount.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the difference was on account of adjustment of CENVAT in audited statements, which cannot be done in annual returns. The appellate authority felt that the contentions were not demonstrated to be substantive. But, perusal of Ext.P5 order would show that there is absolute non-application of mind. Valid contention urged by the petitioner requires to be considered while passing an order of stay.

3. Petitioner has a case that, in the circumstances, petitioner is entitled to input tax credit on purchase value including excise duty as held in Ext.P6 order. This is a matter which requires consideration before passing the order of stay. W.P.C.No.27286/2016

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

i) Ext.P5 is set aside.

ii) Appellate authority shall re-consider the application for stay and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Iii) Until such time, demand made in pursuance of Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance or shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal itself on merits.

(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr