The petitioner has approached the High Court in the writ petition for a direction to the 3rd respondent, Administrator to furnish the shipping document or best evidence in respect of the supplies made by the petitioner to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration for the purpose of availing concessional rate of tax @ 4% under proviso to Section 6(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).
According to the petitioner, the petitioner had sold various items to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration and therefore, he is entitled to reduction in levying of tax @ 4% under KVAT Act on condition of filing necessary declaration from the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep as per Section 6(1) read with Rule 12C (1) of the KVAT Rules.
The petitioner’s claim for concession of 4% availed on the strength of Form 42 was rejected for want of copies of the shipping documents. The period involved is from 2005 to 2011. The assessment orders came to be passed for the financial years 2005- 06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. For the financial year 2010-11, the assessment order was passed.
The petitioner was granted liberty to represent the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep or the buyer under respective invoices, by enclosing a copy of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench to furnish copies of shipping bills or similar documents duly attested by port authorities evidencing shipment of goods covered by respective invoices, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep it is stated that the petitioner is seeking shipping documents from the Administrator after lapse of several years. the petitioner never claimed or insisted for shipping documents at the time of delivery/supply of goods. The purchases were made during 2005 to 2010 and once the petitioner’s claim for concessional rate of tax @ 4% was rejected, the petitioner started litigation.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the fact that at the earlier round of litigation before this Court, this Court has not granted similar reliefs as sought for in this writ petition, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration may be correct in saying that for supplies made during 2005 to 2010, at this point of time documents may not be available. In view thereof, I find no ground to issue direction as sought in this writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, however, devoid of any cost.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
