The single bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( ‘the KVAT Act’ ) on the availability of statutory remedy.
Jinny Jaison, the petitioner was an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( ‘the KVAT Act’ ). The petitioner has been dealing in the jewellery business. During the financial year 2022-2023, as per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner participated in the auction sale of gold ornaments conducted by the financier M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd.
The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, on the allegation that on verification of the data available with the department certain sales and purchases were not found accounted by the petitioner. The assessment order in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was completed on 30.07.2016.
The petitioner aggrieved by the said assessment order filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh assessment order.
While the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the intelligence wing of the State Goods and Services Tax Department initiated proceedings against the seller for suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax. The seller produced copies of the sale bills issued to the petitioner during the years 2012-2013. Petitioner was issued notice and the petitioner filed replies to the said notice issued by the intelligence wing of the State Goods and Services Tax Department.
A revised notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said notice explaining the defects pointed out and requested to consider the documents issued by the State Tax Officer. However, the 2nd respondent passed an order demanding input tax on the differential turnover.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh found that there is a remedy of appeal under Section 55 of the KVAT Act before the appellate authority against the said order. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of availability of alternative remedy, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.
Santhosh P Abraham and M Raj Mohan appeared for the petitioner. Smt Jasmin M M appeared for the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
