9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Ext.P6 and P8 notices, pointing out that the petitioner is liable to satisfy the tax liability, in respect of subsequent return period with interest and penalty, which are under challenge. 2. The sequence of events is as follows. The petitioner, in the course of the business, purchased various commodities from outside the State of Kerala satisfying the 'Entry Tax' payable under Section 12 of the KVAT Act at the check post. By virtue of the mandate under Section 12 (2) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner is entitled to have the said payment of tax, to be adjusted against the 'output tax' actually payable by him. Sec 11(6) enable the assessee to carry forward the excess input tax in respect of the return period, to the next return period, to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the 'next return period' within the same assessment year, is quite wrong and mis conceived. With reference to the statutory provisions, it is said that the action pursued by the petitioner is perfectly within the four walls of the law. It is also pointed out in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner admittedly has not filed any refund applications. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no basis for placing reliance on the proviso to section 11(6) and that there is no bar under the statute to give adjustment of the excess input tax of March 2006 to be adjusted against the tax liability of the next return period, i.e. April 2006. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Rule 47(5) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of 'March 2006', against the amount payable in respect of 'April 2006', which was liable to be entertained by virtue of mandate under Section 11(6), as the statute does not say in so many words, that the benefit contemplated therein will stand confined to the particular assessment year. It is also stated that, scope of the proviso to Section 11(6) is only to enable the party concerned to have refund; which in no case shall place a bar on the way of the petitioner in claiming the benefit under Section 11(6). 8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly concedes that the averment in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner admittedly has not produced in Ext.P1/P2 refund applications is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent assessment years. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that, an enquiry by the concerned officer, in view of Rule 47 (3), can be caused to be conducted and appropriate orders will be passed, this Court finds it not necessary to consider the scope and effect of the concerned legal provisions; especially with reference to 11(6) in the relevant context; which is left open. 10. The concerned respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, especially with regard to the objection to be placed by the petitioner and also on the other points, if raised, which are not covered in this writ petition but form the subject matter of Ext.P8. The proceedings as above shall be finalised passing appropriate or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
