Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1773 - KERALA HIGH COURTRevision of returns rejected - KVAT Act - incorrect values of inter-State purchases and stock transfer inwards shown in annual returns - Asst. Commissioner felt that the revision would alter the turnover - Held that:- To put the problem in perspective, to revise or not revise a return is the question. To revise the return, the dealer faces a Departmental objection. It is two fold : revision permitted, it will alter the declared turnover ; and the company has not produced documents, such as forms F and FA, to prove the genuineness of the claim. On the maintainability of the writ petition, too, the Department objects. It presses into service the alternative remedy. The alternative remedy - Held that:- True, the company has a remedy under section 55 of the Act-a statutory appeal. But once the issue stands repeatedly addressed by this court and precedents with clear holding subsist, driving the suitor to the rigmarole of a remedy, be it an alternative one, serves no purpose. After all, for a Constitutional Court, the alternative remedy is a self-imposed limitation. And it is "self-imposed", not "other-imposed", at that. Documents not produced - Form F and Form FA - Held that:- Indeed, the company admits its omission and calls it inadvertent. To prove an admitted fact, documentary proof is a superfluity. Change of admitted turnover - Held that:- The company submitted its audit certificate on January 31, 2017 and applied the next day for revision of returns. Then the Department began no assessment or penalty proceedings, as mandated in the provisos to section 42 of the Act. About the documents-Forms F and FA-the Department could have, when it heard the company, asked for them if it entertained any doubt about the company's claim. True, burden of proof lies on the dealer, but the Department's exhibit P4 notice casts no doubt on the company's claim. Instead, it only said that the proposed revision will alter the turnover - the possible change of turnover alone is insufficient, for the provisions have received a beneficial, purposive interpretation from the Division Bench. The contingency must have been coupled with Departmental detection and consequential action-for assessment and penalty. Here, neither happened. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to revise the returns for the assessment year 2015-16. The respondents will enable the company to revise the returns, in the presence of the assessing officer, within four weeks after receiving the judgment copy - petition allowed.
|