MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD. Versus THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THRISSUR, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR AND THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISISONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (10) TMI 1150 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-10-2018
WP(C).No. 31512 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON AND SMT.MEERA V.MENON
For The Respondent : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), first suffered an assessment order for 2010-11 and 2011-12. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an ap
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e petitioner did not produce. Instead it took the plea of limitation. Therefore, the assessing authority, for want of records, restored the order that had earlier been interfered with by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. After elaborate arguments on either side, the petitioner's counsel fairly submits that the petitioner has nothing to hide. He will produce the records the assessing authority required ; so the matter may be remanded. At any rate, he has submitted that the appellate order is sweeping and conclusive. According to him, it has allowed the petitioner's every plea.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader objected to any remand. According to her, the petition
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
oncession.
6. It only serves the ends of justice if the petitioner suffers any order after a full opportunity. The opportunity he earlier had may have not been utilised for the petitioner laboured under an impression that Ext.P2 appellate order is conclusive and the assessment authority's demand for production of records travels beyond his remit as fixed in the appellate order.
7. I, too, find an element of ambiguity in the appellate order. In one breath, it accepts the petitioner's entire contention. In the other breath, it allows the assessing authority to examine the petitioner's plea. Thus, whether that examination includes summoning of the records afresh is a question that has no easy answer. Given that ambiguity, I recko
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =