TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Reopening Assessments & Penalty Orders Clarified Under KVAT Act</h1> <h3>N. PRAKASAN Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER -1, ALAPPUZHA AND THE STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM</h3> N. PRAKASAN Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER -1, ALAPPUZHA AND THE STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - [2017] 99 VST 171 (Ker) Issues Involved:1. Validity of reopening assessments under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.2. Applicability of input tax credit under Section 25C of the KVAT Act.3. Legitimacy of penalty orders under Section 22(7) of the KVAT Act.4. Conditions under Section 6(5) of the KVAT Act and their interpretation.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reopening Assessments under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act:The petitioners challenged the reopening of assessments under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, arguing that once returns were accepted and finalized, there was no justification for reopening. The court noted that the assessments were reopened due to alleged suppression of purchase turnover, which justified the reopening under Section 25(1). The counter affidavit by the respondent supported this by stating that the proceedings were in accordance with law due to clear suppression of purchase turnover.2. Applicability of Input Tax Credit under Section 25C of the KVAT Act:The petitioners contended that they were entitled to input tax credit under Section 25C, which was introduced by the Finance Act 2014 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. The court examined various judgments to interpret Section 25C. It concluded that Section 25C applies only if the assessing authority denies the eligibility to pay presumptive tax for violating conditions under Section 6(5). Since suppression of turnover does not fall under the conditions enumerated in Section 6(5), the court held that Section 25C does not apply to cases of suppressed turnover.3. Legitimacy of Penalty Orders under Section 22(7) of the KVAT Act:The petitioners also challenged the penalty orders issued under Section 22(7). The court referred to previous judgments, particularly the Division Bench decision in Keltron Employees Cooperative Society v. State of Kerala, which upheld the imposition of penalties under Section 22(7) for dealers paying tax under Section 6(5) if the tax paid was less than the tax liability. The court found no reason to interfere with the penalty orders, except in specific instances where the turnover was below the prescribed limit.4. Conditions under Section 6(5) of the KVAT Act and Their Interpretation:The court analyzed the conditions under Section 6(5) and concluded that suppression of turnover does not fall within the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (f). Therefore, the benefit of input tax credit under the proviso to Section 6(5) or Section 25C could not be extended to dealers who suppressed turnover. The court emphasized that a finding by the assessing authority of a violation of conditions under Section 6(5) is a prerequisite for claiming input tax credit under Section 25C.Conclusion:The court dismissed most of the writ petitions, upholding the assessment and penalty orders, except in W.P.(C) No.38920/2015, where the turnover for the year 2010-11 was below Rs. 60 lakhs. In this case, the court allowed the petition partly, setting aside the relevant assessment and penalty orders and directing a fresh assessment at the presumptive rate. The other writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the assessments and penalties imposed by the authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
