Kerala High Court
E.T.Karunakaran vs Stateof Kerala on 29 October, 2015
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY,THE 30TH DAYOF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938
OT.Rev.No. 91 of 2016 ()
-------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 631/2014 of
KVAT/AGRL.I.T.ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE DATED 29.10.2015
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
---------------------------------------------------
E.T.KARUNAKARAN
PROPRIETOR,SOUTHERN LUBRICHEM INDUSTRIES,
KOKKALLUR, BALUSSERY
BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------
STATEOF KERALA
R BY GOVT PLEADER SMT.SOBHAANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN OTRV.91/16
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOYILANDY
FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 31.10.2011.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE, FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 26.11.2013.
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA
VALUE ADDED TAX/ AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE IN TA(VAT).631/14 DATED 29.10.2015.
ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 16.10.2015.
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------
O.T.Rev.No.91 of 2016
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2016
O R D E R
Antony Dominic, J.
1. This revision is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the oder passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax/Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in TA(VAT).631/14.
2.We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3.Assessment under section 25 of the KVAT Act, which is the subject matter of this revision, was completed in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. It appears that the assessee had reported his taxable turn over. Subsequent verification of books of accounts revealed sales variation, purchase suppression and stock variation. The total sales suppression, including sales turn over of the purchase suppression detected was estimated by adding gross profit at 16.82%. It was on that basis, assessment under section 25 of the OTRV.91/16 2 Act was completed. The first appellate authority did not interfere with the assessments made, except regarding the addition of `22,111.69. It was still aggrieved, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Order of the Tribunal shows that two issues were raised before it. First was whether the denial of the request of the appellant for permission to file revised return was for proper and valid reason. The second issue raised was whether the estimation and addition of probable omission and suppression was justified.
4.In so far as the first question regarding the denial of permission for filing revised return is concerned, reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that the proceedings under section 74 was completed on 21.4.2010, whereby the assessee had compounded the offence by paying fee of `4,00,000/-. However, the assessee requested for permission to file revised return only on 8.7.2011. It was taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the assessee that the permission to file revised return was declined. OTRV.91/16 3
5.In so far as the estimations and additions are concerned, we find that on verification of the books of accounts, the assessing authority found unaccounted raw materials, stock variation, sales variation and purchase suppression. This was noticed also by the intelligence wing of the department at the time of inspection of the business premises. The sales turn over of the variation, purchase suppression etc. were estimated by the assessing authority by adding gross profit at the rate of 16.82%. It is seen from the order that the gross profit estimated was the declared percentage of profit as per the books of account maintained by the assessee himself.
6.Facts being as above, we cannot say that the denial of permission to file revised return or the additions made or estimation of profit are totally unjustified requiring interference in revisional jurisdiction. Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, Judge.
kkb.