Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANAGING DIRECTOR versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MANAGING DIRECTOR v. STATE OF KERALA - TRC No. 95 of 2002 [2007] RD-KL 17281 (13 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

TRC No. 95 of 2002()

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

For Respondent :SPL.GOVT.PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :13/09/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

T.R.C.No. 95 of 2002

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2007.

O R D E R

H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition arises under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessment year in question is 1985-86.

2. The assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T.A.No.618 of 1999 is before us in this tax revision case. The assessee has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision.

(i). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in the absence of giving retrospective effect to the proviso added through Finance Act 10 of 1997 as well as the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment Ordinance) Act 13 of 1998 and in terms of the terminology in the Finance Act and the Ordinance the benefit accrued on the assessee on the ground of limitation can be taken away? (ii). Whether the benefit accrued through the parent section as introduced through Finance Act 13 of 93 as Sub section (6) of Section 17 can be taken away through the substitution and whether the authorities below are justified in rejecting the contention of the revision petitioners based on the said amendment? (iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities are justified in completing the assessments disregarding the statutory audit by the auditors of the department of Co-operation in the light of Sub section (4A) of Section 17 of the KGST Act? (iv). Whether on the facts and circumstance in the case, the TRC.No.95 of 2002 -2- authorities were justified in not taking into account the corresponding documents evidencing the sale of the products which were sold locally for which Form No.25 has not been produced granting exemption from sales tax for the local sales?

(v). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority is justified in assessing the Revision Petitioner for the copra procured by the Revision Petitioner as an agent of the State and that which has been transferred to another organization of the State Government as directed by the Government treating the said transfer as sales?

(v). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities are justified in discarding the exemption given for the sale of coconut oil from the purview of sales tax when the end product has been exempted from sales tax by the Government through Annexure 9? On these facts and circumstances of the case, has not the Tribunal erred in law in not set asiding orders under challenge?

3. In our view, the questions of law framed by the assessee is no more debatable in view of the orders passed by this Court in the case of Geo Sea Foods V. Addl. Sales Tax Officer (2006 (1) KLT 72 (F.B.). In the said decision, this Court has observed as under:

"The language used in S.17A clearly means that notwithstanding anything contained in S.17 or S.18 or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or Tribunal or other authority, assessments for any period prior to 1-4-1993 shall be deemed to be pending and the same could be completed within the permitted time. In view of S.17A of the Act, the concept of reasonable period for completing assessments for the period prior to 1-4-1993 is no more of any relevance or significance. The period is as prescribed in the Act. Under S.17A all assessments prior to T.R.C.No.95 of 2002 -3 1-4-1993 and not completed as on that date shall be deemed to be pending as on 1-4-1993 and it is open to the Revenue to complete such assessments in accordance with law."

4. In view of the law declared by this Court in the above-said decision, the questions of law framed by the assessee requires to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

MS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.