M/s. Ishana Golds And Precious (P) LTD. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Vatakara, The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) , State Goods & Service Tax Department, Kozhikode The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal And State Of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram – 2018 (3) TMI 90 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Rectification of mistake – specific case of the petitioner is that the determination of the amount payable by them made in terms of Ext.P2 order is incorrect – Held that: – In so far as the correctness of Ext.P5 order is the subject matter of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merits of the matter. But, on the materials on record, it appears prima facie to this Court that the computation of the liability of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P5 order is incorrect – petition allowed. – W.P.(C) No.5271 of 2018 Dated:- 27-2-2018 – P. B. SURESH KUMAR, J. For The Petitioner : Sri.K.J.Abraha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er in appeal. The appellate authority found that Ext.P2 is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and consequently directed the assessing authority to pass fresh orders. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the appellate authority in this connection. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order before the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal, though dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner, made certain observations as to the manner in which the tax liability of the petitioner for the relevant year should have been fixed. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the appellate tribunal. Thereupon, the matter was reconsidered and a fresh order was passed by the assessing authority. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the assessing authority in this connection. In terms of Ext.P5 order, the assessing authority has refixed the tax payable by the petitioner for the relevant year at ₹ 1,71,83,340/- and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit amount namely, ₹ 1
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ermination of the amount payable by them made in terms of Ext.P2 order is incorrect. It is on account of the said reason that the petitioner took up the matter in appeal, and later in second appeal. It is in the place of ₹ 5,46,378/- which the petitioner challenged, they are mulcted with the liability of almost ₹ 2.6 crores. In so far as the correctness of Ext.P5 order is the subject matter of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merits of the matter. But, on the materials on record, it appears prima facie to this Court that the computation of the liability of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P5 order is incorrect. It is also seen that the the computation has been made without reckoning the observations made by the appellate tribunal in Ext.P4 order. In so far as the petitioner has remitted the entire tax payable in terms of the liability initially fixed as per Ext.P1 order, according to me, the petit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =