MS. PKL TRADERS Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-II, MALAPPURAM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM, COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI – 2019 (1) TMI 123 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of assessment order – Bogus C-forms – case of petitioner is that the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice and have denied essential information to the petitioners – lack of power to reassess the petitioners' liability for the year 2014- 2015 – Held that:- As the petitioners alone could vouch for the genuineness of the C-forms, I reckon the petitioners' insistence on the special investigation report serves no purpose. The burden, in fact, squarely lies on t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ise that some of the C-forms they produced are bogus. The assessments relate to 2014-15. Later, the Deputy Commissioner, Malappuram, issued the Ext.P2 notice under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). It is a proposal to cancel the Ext.P1 assessment order and for suo motu revision. Eventually, the Deputy Commissioner passed the Ext.P3 order, setting aside the Ext.P1 assessment order and requiring the assessing authority to redo the assessment. 3. The petitioners challenged the Ext.P3 in a revision and, pending that revision, they have filed a writ petition. Then they also obtained a stay. This Court directed the revision authority to stay further proceedings until the revision was decided. Eventually, the revision petition was dismissed. Later, through the Ext.P8, the assessing authority reassessed the petitioners under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Assailing the Ext.P8 order of assessment, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 4. Sri Premjit Nagendran,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t he sent was only a tabular form of the C-Form details, but not the very report. 6. Dr. Thushara James, the Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the Deputy Commissioner s Ext.P3 order setting aside the Ext.P1 assessment order has attained finality. Now what remains is the Ext.P8 assessment under Section 25(1) of the Act. The petitioners, according to her, have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal. On the question of the principles of natural justice, she contends that the petitioners were given numerous opportunities to establish before the assessing authority that the C-forms are genuine, but they have failed. As the documents emanated from the petitioners, the burden squarely lay on them. Therefore, she urges this Court to dismiss the writ petitions. 7. Heard Sri Premjit Nagendran, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 8. To begin with, if I rule on the alternative remedy, I must not advert to the merits.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
cerns the special investigation report. 12. As the Government Pleader has rightly contended, it is a matter of proving the genuineness of C-forms. The petitioners, in fact, produced replies from the authorities of various other States testifying to the genuineness of other unrelated C-forms. But about the C-forms in dispute, there is no material. As the petitioners alone could vouch for the genuineness of the C-forms, I reckon the petitioners' insistence on the special investigation report serves no purpose. The burden, in fact, squarely lies on the petitioners to prove that the C-forms are genuine. Put explicitly, if a document is suspected, the source of suspicion is of no consequence, even a whisper of doubt may cast a cloud on the genuineness of an instrument. Then, it is the originator of the instrument that should dispel the clouds of suspicion. In this context, I am constrained to hold that there is no infraction of principles of natural justice. 13. Indeed, both the petitio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =