Kerala High Court
Joy P.J vs Commercial Tax Officer on 8 October, 2012
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935
WP(C).No. 6762 of 2014 (U)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
JOY P.J., PROPRIETOR,
M/S.PEEJAY INDUSTRIES, CC 29/2239B, CHAMBAKKARA,
POONITHURA P.O., COCHIN - 682 038.
BY ADVS.SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
SRI.JENSON FRANCIS PAYANKAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
4TH CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CLASS TOWER,
COCHIN - 682 018.
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 6762 of 2014 (U)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8/10/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P1(A): COPY OF EARLY HEARING PETITION DATED 8/10/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH EXT.P1
APPLICATION.
P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/10/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF COCHIN UNIVERISITY IN CLARIFYING THAT IN
CUT LAMINATION THERE IS NO CHANGE IN METALLUGICAL COMPOSITION
OR MAGNETIC CHARACTERISTICS
P3: COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09, ALONG WITH BREAK-
UP OF SALES AND PURCHASES.
P3(A): COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10, ALONG WITH BREAK-
UP OF SALES AND PURCHASES.
P3(B): COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, ALONG WITH BREAK-
UP OF SALES AND PURCHASES.
P3(C): COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, ALONG WITH BREAK-
UP OF SALES AND PURCHASES.
P4: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, U/S.24(1) TO THE KVAT PROPOSING BEST JUDMENT
ASSESSMENT FOR 2008-09.
P4:(A): COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, U/S.24(1) TO THE KVAT PROPOSING BEST JUDMENT
ASSESSMENT FOR 2009-10.
P4:(B): COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, U/S.24(1) TO THE KVAT PROPOSING BEST JUDMENT
ASSESSMENT FOR 2010-11.
P4:(C): COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, U/S.24(1) TO THE KVAT PROPOSING BEST JUDMENT
ASSESSMENT FOR 2011-12.
P5: COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/03/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT.P4, WHICH WAS DULY
ACKNOWLEDGED.
PJ
...2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 6762 of 2014 (U)
--------------------------------------
P5(A): COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/03/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT.P4(A), WHICH WAS DULY
ACKNOWLEDGED.
P5(B): COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/03/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT.P4(B), WHICH WAS DULY
ACKNOWLEDGED.
P5(C): COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/03/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT.P4(C), WHICH WAS DULY
ACKNOWLEDGED.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.C. No.6762 OF 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2014.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is a registered dealer, on the rolls of the 1st respondent, is stated as a trader in cut lamination of silicon- electrical steel and manufacturer of mini transformers used for electronic goods, running the establishment under the name and style 'M/s.Peejay Industries'.
2. According to the petitioner, the tax and liability in respect of the particular instance, ie. cut lamination, can only be 4%, by virtue of the relevant entries in 3rd schedule to the KVAT Act. But the authorities were insisting to have a higher rate of tax and it was in the said circumstances, that the petitioner was compelled to approach the competent authority under the KVAT Act, by filing Ext.P1 petition under Section 94 of the said Act, for clarification. Despite of filing application almost 1= years ago, no orders have been passed so far. Ext.P1(a) reminder seeking for an early hearing, also did not turn to be fruitful. Copies of the Trading account for different assessment years have been W.P.C.No.6762 of 2014 2 produced by the petitioner as Ext.P3 series, showing the split-up figures. It was in the meanwhile, that the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 series notices under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act, on receipt of which, the petitioner brought the actual position to the notice of the concerned respondent by submitting Ext.P5 series replies.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent himself has conceded in Ext.P4 series notices that the petitioner produced the Books of Accounts on 19.12.2013. After the verification of the Books of Accounts as above, the course sought to be pursued by the 1st respondent by issuing Ext.P4 series notices under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act is not correct or sustainable and hence the challenge.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that Ext.P1 is still to be finalised and that the same will be finalised within the shortest possible time.
5. Considering the fact that Ext.P1 application for clarification was filed by the petitioner as early as 08.10.2012, the competent authority is directed to pass final orders on Ext.P1 W.P.C.No.6762 of 2014 3 in terms of Section 94 of the KVAT Act at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The proceedings forming subject matter of Exts.P4 and P5 shall be finalised by the 1st respondent, based on the clarification to be obtained as above and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' thereafter.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the competent authority/ concerned respondent for further steps.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp