M/s. HDFC BANK LIMITED Versus Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM AND THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (6) TMI 1289 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-5-2018
W.P.(C). No.13691 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR. P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
For The Petitioner : Sri Joseph Jerard Samson Rodrigues
For The Respondent : Sri. V.K.Shamsudeen (SR.GP) And Sr. Government Pleader:Sri.V.K. Shamsudheen
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the Act). It is stated by the petitioner that in the return filed by them under the Act for the month of September 2015, the value of goods stock transferred was shown incorrectly by mistake. It is also stated by the petitioner that the said mistake has come to their notice only on receipt of the audit report under subsection (1) of Section 4
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ds thus:
“(2) Where any dealer detects any omission or mistake in the annual return submitted by him with reference to the audited figures, he shall file revised annual return rectifying the mistake or omission along with the audit certificate. Where, as a result of such revision, the tax liability increases, the revised return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax, interest due thereon under sub-section (5) of section 31, and penal interest, calculated at twice the rate specified under sub – section (5) of section 31:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to a dealer against whom any penal action is initiated in respect of such omission or mistake under any of the provisions of this Act.”
Petitioner has not placed on record the audit report for the relevant year. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition as W.P.(C).No.6389/2018, the judges papers of which was called for and perused. The audit report of the petitioner for the relevant year was Ext.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ut of time.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively contended that in the light of the additional provisos added to the existing proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act in terms of Finance Act, 2018, the petitioner is entitled to prefer Ext.P1 application. The provisos added to the existing proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act reads thus:
“Provided further that those dealers who have filed audited statement of accounts and certificates under sub-section (1) will be allowed to revise the returns for the period up to June, 2017, in respect of defects of a technical or clerical in nature, having no effect on the sales turnover already conceded or the tax paid. Such dealers may apply for revision of their returns before the assessing authority on or before 30th June, 2018:
Provided also that this facility shall not be available to dealers against whom assessment proceedings have already been initiated based on such defects:
Provided also
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =