Kerala High Court
V. Abdul Khader vs The Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax on 11 July, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
V. ABDUL KHADER,
VPF FEEDS, VILAYOOR WEST, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON
K.KRISHNA
MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST,
TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM,KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.
BY SMT.JASMINE M M, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5044/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NOS. 4435 AND 5044 OF 2018
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5044 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
M/S VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES LTD,
DOOR NO. 1/26, KALLEKULANGARA PO, DHONI ROAD,
PALAKKAD - 678 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.
GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS), M.G.
VENUGOPALAN.
BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON
K.KRISHNA
MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST,
TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.
BY SMT.JASMINE M M, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).4435/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NOS. 4435 AND 5044 OF 2018
3
JUDGMENT
The issues raised in these writ petitions appear to be covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in U.Manikandan v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Another [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2836], where this Court held as follows:-
"16. In this context, we have to pertinently observe that when best judgment is resorted to as has been held in (1973) 2 SCC 137 [The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. M/S. H.M.Esufali], the Courts will have to first see whether the accounts maintained by the assessee was rightly rejected as unreliable and then as to whether the basis adopted in estimating the turnover has a reasonable nexus with the estimate made. We are quite conscious of the fact that H.M Esufali was a case in which the statutory remedies were exhausted and what was impugned before the Supreme Court, was the judgment of the High Court in a statutory revision. We are in Article 226 and if there were any adjudication of facts required we would have definitely restrained ourselves from interfering with the assessment. We also agree with the learned Senior Government Pleader that there is no question urged of the provision of law, under which the assessment was made, being ultra vires. Nor is there any allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. We garner support from Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd to find that the proceedings itself is an abuse of process of law for reason of the Assessing Officer having rejected the WP(C) NOS. 4435 AND 5044 OF 2018 4 books of accounts merely on the ground that a PSU sells day-old chicks at a price higher than that of the assessee. The estimation made is on the basis of the books of accounts of the PSU and there was no defect, omission or suppression detected from the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. We find that the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee was not justified and the basis adopted, being the sale price of another dealer, that too a PSU, has no reasonable nexus with the estimation made. We hence set aside the assessment only to the extent the additions were made based on the sale price of day-old chicks of KEPCO, on the particular facts of this case."
2. The learned Government Pleader does not seriously dispute that the issues are covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in U.Manikandan (supra).
Taking into consideration of the above, W.P(C)No.4435 of 2018 is allowed by quashing Ext.P2 to P2(d) orders and W.P(C)No.5044 of 2018 is allowed by quashing Ext.P3 to P3(b) orders of assessment.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NOS. 4435 AND 5044 OF 2018 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5044/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 (VAT) EXHIBIT P3 (A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 (VAT) EXHIBIT P3 B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 (VAT) WP(C) NOS. 4435 AND 5044 OF 2018 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4435/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P1(B) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P1(C) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P1(D) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2(B) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2(C) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2(D) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER IN WA NO.2634/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT