Kerala High Court
M/S. Tecpro Infra-Projects Limited ... vs The State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2015
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY,THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 38044 of 2015 (E)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
M/S. TECPRO INFRA-PROJECTS LIMITED CRAN 91,
PONEKKARA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.AJAYAKUMAR BISHNOI
BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WC),
O/O.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES
ERNAKULAM, 682 019.
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 38044 of 2015 (E)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT 2003 FOR THE
YEAR 2013-14 DATED 23RD JULY 2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITONER
P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED NOTICE U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED
5.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25TH AUGUST 2015, 5TH SEPTEMBER
2015, 29TH SEPTEMBER 2015, 30.9.2015 AND 6TH OCTOBER 2015 FILED BY
THE PETITINER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT
P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER 2015 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF 20F
CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 AND THE COPY OF CORRESPONDING
FROM 20F
P5- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32072001175/13-14 DATED
10.9.2015 ISSSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITONER
P6- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN
OTREV NO.49 OF 2014 DATED 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
P6- THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 IN FORM
NO.12 DTED 10.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER BASED ON THE P5 ASSESSMENT ORDER
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.38044 of 2015
.............................................................
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order of assessment passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') for the assessment year 2013-2014. The contention of the petitioner against Ext.P5 is essentially that Ext.P5 order was passed solely for the reason that the petitioner had not produced the audited statements in Form 13/13A of the KVAT Act and the additions made in respect of the petitioner were solely on that ground. It is stated that by Ext.P6 judgment of this Court, it has been made clear that a proposal for re-assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act cannot be based solely on the non-production of an audited statement in Form 13 and Form 13A by the assessee. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner therefore is that going by Ext.P6 judgment of this Court, the assessment order is illegal.
-2- W.P.(C). No.38044 of 2015
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, in Ext.P5 assessment order, the non-production of audited statements in Form 13 and Form 13A is only one of the reasons that weighed with the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment against the petitioner. In Ext.P5 order, there is a detailed consideration of the various grounds that were urged against the petitioner in the pre-assessment notice, and after consideration of the same the assessment was completed in the manner indicated in Ext.P5. While the petitioner would raise various contentions against Ext.P5, I am of the view that, against Ext.P5 order the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act. The challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P5 order is therefore rejected. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would also like to explore his remedy of filing a rectification application against Ext.P5 order. Taking note of the said submission, I make it clear that, while the writ petition in its -3- W.P.(C). No.38044 of 2015 challenge against Ext.P5 order is rejected, the petitioner is free to pursue either the remedy of seeking a rectification of Ext.P5 order or the remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P5 order in accordance with the statutory provisions.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/15.12.15 -4- W.P.(C). No.38044 of 2015