The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition on the availability of alternate remedy of appeal should be resorted even if original authority has erred on law under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).
The present writ petition has been filed impugning the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Petitioner was registered dealer under the KVAT Act. During the year 2014-15 petitioner had reported total taxable turnover of Rs. 14,73,77,783/- and Rs. 10,72,90,836/-. as per the annual return, total receipts reported was Rs. 14,73,77,783/- and in the audit report total receipt was shown as Rs. 1,26,04,412/-.
Since there was a difference between total receipt as shown in the audit report and the total taxable turnover mentioned in the return and the petitioner failed to reconcile the said difference, the Assessing Authority was of the view that the addition of 25% to be made on the contract receipt declared and the total sum thus would be assessed at 14.5%.
The Assessing Authority considered the contention raised by the authorised representative regarding the assessment proceedings being time barred and held that as per the Finance Act, 2017, the time limit for completion of assessment has been extended from 5 to 6 years and hence the time limit for completion of assessment for the financial year 2014-15 would be up to 31.03.2021 and notice was well within the time prescribed by the Finance Act, 2017 and the contention of the authorised representative that the assessment proceedings were time barred was rejected. As no other contention was raised and no materials were produced by the petitioner/assessee, the assessment was completed.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “I find a little substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was violation of the principles of natural justice or the petitioner was not afforded with adequate opportunity of hearing. The facts as noted above would disclose that the petitioner was issued notices twice and the authorised representative was heard. But, he only submitted that the assessment proceedings were time barred and he did not addressed the issue on merits or produced any materials.”
“It is well settled that when there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided even if the original authority has erred on law, the remedy against the order is to file an appeal under the statute and the writ petition before this Court. Hence, I find no ground to entertain this writ petition and it is hereby dismissed” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
