Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs M/S.T-Cube Projects (P) Ltd on 20 November, 2020
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, T.R.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942
O.T.Rev.No.37 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A(VAT) NO.941/2012 DATED 30-11-2015
OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW),
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
M/S.T-CUBE PROJECTS (P) LTD.,
VII/75, SECOND FLOOR, PULIYERIL ARCADE,
THIRUVANKULAM-682305.
BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.T.Rev.No.37 of 2017 - 2 -
K. Vinod Chandran & T.R.Ravi, JJ.
-------------------------------------
O.T.Rev.No.37 of 2017
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 20th day of November, 2020
ORDER
Vinod Chandran, J.
The State is in revision from the order of the Tribunal, which set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee. The question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal is re-framed as under:
Ought not the Tribunal have found that the respondent, awarder, is duty bound to deduct the correct amount of tax due from the sub contractor after collecting Form No.20, Form No.20A and Form No.4D as stipulated under Section 10 of the KVAT Act and Rule 42(1) of the KVAT Rules; on failure of which the penalty levied is proper and statutorily permissible?
2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, carrying on construction work. For the relevant assessment year, 2007-08, the assessee had applied for compounding and was permitted the same. The assessee had a total contract receipt of Rs.92,07,027/-, out of which Rs.21,79,215/- was the amount paid to the sub contractor, for which tax was deducted at the compounding rate of 2%. The Intelligence Officer found that without the statutory O.T.Rev.No.37 of 2017 - 3 - forms, especially Form No.4D, the assessee ought to have deducted tax at the rate of 8% of the amounts paid to the sub contractor; the sub contractor being a registered dealer. The penalty was imposed only for the reason that the required certificate from the sub contractor was not obtained. The first appellate authority set aside the penalty, which was affirmed by the Tribunal.
3. Both the appellate authorities found that the assessee being a compounded works contractor, had paid tax at the rate of 2% for the total contract receipt. The fact that the assessee had collected 2% from the amounts paid to the sub contractor as tax deduction at source and paid it over to the Department was of no consequence, since the assessee had satisfied its tax liability. The assessee was also statutorily permitted to deduct such tax from the sub contractor. We do not think any question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal and we reject the O.T.Revision, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE Vku/-
O.T.Rev.No.37 of 2017 - 4 -
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 67(1) OF KVAT ACT DATED 26-11-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PASSED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-05-2012 IN KVATA NO.42 OF 2011 ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NO.941 OF 2012 DATED 30-11-2015.
[TRUE COPY]