2022 (4) TMI 249 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Registered dealer wins case on tax penalty challenge under Kerala VAT Act

Color Homes Versus The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), State Tax Officer Formerly Designated As Commercial Tax Officer, Circle III, Kozhikode, Joint Commissioner Formerly Designated As Deputy Commissioner, Office Of State Tax Officer, Kozhikode

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer, in a case challenging penalty and reassessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, ... Composite order of penalty under section 67 and section 44(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Amnesty Scheme - HELD THAT:- By Ext. P8 letter dated 17-09-2020, petitioner had specifically intimated to the assessing officer that the Appellate Authority had directed the assessing officer to issue modified orders of penalty within two weeks. Petitioner had also pointed out that despite the lapse of five years, modified orders were not issued and since the petitioner intended to claim the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme of 2020, issuance of modified orders was urgent. It was thereafter that the second respondent issued a fresh assessment order on 27.01.2021 reducing the tax liability of the petitioner drastically. Since Ext.P13 modified assessment order was served on the petitioner only on 01-02-2021, a period of 30 days was available to the petitioner to claim the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2020. Accordingly, by letter dated 05-02-2021, petitioner sought to claim the benefit of the said Amnesty Scheme as per the request letter produced as Ext.P14. From the records produced before this Court, it is evident that petitioner's access to the Amnesty portal was rejected/denied, contrary to the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme and therefore declining to accept and grant the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2020 to the petitioner is without any basis. Petitioner cannot be faulted for the denial of access. The system declined access to the petitioner, contrary to the terms of the scheme. If the error in the system was averted, petitioner would have been eligible to claim the option under the Amnesty Scheme 2020. This Court holds that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme of 2020 and that the respondents were bound to accept petitioner's application exercising its option for the Amnesty Scheme 2020 - the second respondent is directed to accept the exercise of option by the petitioner for the Amnesty Scheme 2020 - the writ petition is disposed off. Issues:1. Challenge to penalty and assessment under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.2. Claiming benefit under Amnesty Scheme 2020.3. Technical issues with web portal affecting application under the scheme.4. Comparison of Amnesty Scheme 2020 and 2021.5. Failure to update modified orders on the web portal.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged a composite penalty order and reassessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The penalty order under section 67 was modified in revision, penalty under section 44(10) was reduced in appeal, and reassessment under section 25(1) was set aside for fresh consideration. The petitioner approached the VAT Appellate Tribunal against the penalty modification under section 67.2. The petitioner sought to benefit from the Amnesty Scheme 2020 introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2020. Despite efforts to avail the scheme by withdrawing appeals and submitting applications, technical issues with the web portal prevented the petitioner from claiming the benefit. The petitioner alleged that the rejection of their application was contrary to law and sought directions for acceptance under the scheme.3. Technical issues with the web portal delayed the issuance of modified orders and hindered the petitioner's application under the Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner highlighted the failure of tax officers to update the portal with revised orders, causing discrepancies in claiming benefits under the scheme.4. A comparison was drawn between the Amnesty Scheme 2020 and 2021, emphasizing the financial impact on the petitioner due to the technical issues faced in accessing the scheme. The petitioner contended that the web portal's failure to reflect modified orders showcased the respondents' negligence, resulting in prejudice regarding the payment quantum under the different schemes.5. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2020, emphasizing that the denial of access to the scheme's portal was unjustified. The judgment directed the respondents to accept the petitioner's application under the scheme and allowed payment within a specified timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, ensuring the right to benefit under the Amnesty Scheme 2020.