Works contract penalty requires proof of taxable incidence; mere mobilisation advance receipt cannot sustain evasion penalty.

Penalty for alleged evasion under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained on the basis of receipt of contract money alone, including mobilisation advance, because the Department had not first established that the works contract was actually executed or that taxable incidence had arisen. Rule 9(1)(c) applies only when a works contract is in execution and goods have accrued to tax liability, so the factual basis for invoking the Explanation to Section 67 and quantifying evasion was missing. However, the assessee's failure to disclose the receipt in the returns justified a limited penalty, and the substantive penalty was set aside while a nominal penalty was retained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be sustained merely on the basis of receipt of contract amounts shown as mobilisation advance, without proof of execution of the works contract or quantification of tax evasion.

Analysis: The receipt of money by itself was held insufficient to establish that the taxable incidence under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act had arisen. Rule 9(1)(c) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 refers to contract amount received or receivable in the case of a works contract, but that provision was construed as operating only where the works contract is actually executed and there is accretion of goods giving rise to tax liability. The Department had not undertaken an enquiry into the stage of execution of the contract, and therefore had not established the initial factual basis necessary to invoke the Explanation to Section 67 or to compute evasion. At the same time, the assessee's failure to disclose the receipt in the returns justified a limited penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty based on alleged evasion was not sustainable in the manner imposed, but a nominal penalty of Rs. 10,000 was upheld for non-disclosure of the receipt.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part, with the substantive penalty set aside and a limited penalty retained.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for evasion under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 cannot be sustained unless the Department first establishes the taxable incidence of a works contract and the basis for quantifying evasion; mere receipt of contract money, including mobilisation advance, is insufficient.

---