2025 (2) TMI 473 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

VAT assessment set aside for lack of independent inquiry under Section 25(1) Kerala VAT Act 2003

The Kerala HC set aside a VAT assessment where authorities estimated sales turnover based solely on income disclosed under 'Other Sources' in profit and ... Addition of sale turnover by relying on the income disclosed under the head 'Income from Other Sources'/ 'Other Income’ in the trading profit and loss account for the relevant assessment year - estimating the sales turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act - estimating the sales turnover from the income disclosed under the head 'Income from Other Source' in the trading profit and loss account, without any independent finding - estimating the sale turnover by adopting the turnover at 8% as gross profit as the benchmark without any comparable data - benefit of the sub clause (3) of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 prescribes the power of the assessing authority to complete the assessment on best judgment basis, if it is found that any income has escaped the assessment. It is now trite law that even when an intelligence officer initiates proceedings for penalty under Section 67 of the KVAT Act and finalises a report, the said report cannot form the basis of reopening of the assessment. The above principle equally applies to the proceedings initiated under Section 25. The assessing officer is bound to conduct an independent enquiry as regards the materials available, which according to him requires reopening of the assessment or completing the assessment on a best judgment basis. The assessing officer proceeded clearly on an assumption, which is impermissible under the scheme of the Act. The infirmity which had crept into the assessment order was not considered in proper perspective by the first appellate authority as well as by the appellate tribunal. Conclusion - None of the authorities have considered the case in hand in its true perspective and applied the law correctly. Thus, the order of assessment as confirmed by the first appellate authority and the tribunal cannot be sustained. The O.T. Revision is allowed by setting aside the order of assessment dated 17.10.2017 as confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as by the tribunal and answering the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the authorities below were correct in sustaining the addition to sales turnover by relying on income disclosed under the head 'Income from Other Sources'/'Other Income' in the trading profit and loss account for the relevant assessment year. Whether income disclosed under the head 'Other Sources' in the trading profit and loss account and assessed under 'Income from Other Sources' as per the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be utilized to estimate sales turnover for assessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Whether the assessing authority was correct in estimating sales turnover from income disclosed under 'Income from Other Sources' without any independent finding or proof of stock variation or incorrect books of account, especially when the assessee discharged the initial burden of proof. Whether the authorities were correct in estimating sales turnover by adopting an 8% gross profit benchmark without any comparable data. Whether the assessee is eligible for benefit under sub-clause (3) of Section 25AA of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the prospective operation of that provision, including the correctness of precedent laid down by this Court in a related judgment. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Reliance on Income from Other Sources to Estimate Sales Turnover Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 empowers the assessing authority to complete assessment on best judgment basis if income has escaped assessment. However, the assessing officer must conduct an independent enquiry based on available materials. The Supreme Court in M/s. Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner held that for sales tax, it is necessary not only to show unexplained acquisition of money but also to establish that such acquisition arises from transactions liable to sales tax. P.C. Ittymathew & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax reaffirmed that additions made by income tax authorities cannot form the basis of sales tax assessment without material linking the income to taxable sales. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. M/s. Standard Bakery reiterated that presumption of sales tax liability cannot be made without nexus between income tax additions and alleged sales. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessing officer assumed that the income of Rs. 1,17,17,362/- disclosed under 'Income from Other Sources' was derived from sale of gold ornaments without any supporting evidence or independent enquiry. The trading account was not rejected, and no proof of stock variation or incorrect books was found. The assumption was held to be impermissible under the Act's scheme. The authorities below failed to consider this infirmity properly. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee explained before income tax authorities that the amount was income from unsecured loans, accepted by the income tax department with only a minor addition. Statements of persons who allegedly extended loans were found to contain discrepancies by the Revenue, but no conclusive proof linked the amount to sales turnover for VAT purposes. Application of Law to Facts: Without independent findings or material linking the income to taxable sales, the assessing officer's reliance on income tax returns and income classified under other sources was inadequate to estimate sales turnover for VAT assessment. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that concurrent findings by three authorities confirmed the income was from sale of gold ornaments and thus taxable. The assessee countered that the income was from unsecured loans, accepted by income tax authorities, and the best judgment assessment was based on surmises and conjectures. Conclusions: The Court held that the assessment based on such assumptions without supporting evidence or independent enquiry was impermissible. The authorities failed to apply the law correctly and did not consider the assessee's explanation adequately. Issue 3: Estimation of Sales Turnover Without Independent Findings or Proof of Stock Variation Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessing officer must base best judgment assessments on material and independent findings, not mere assumptions. The principle that assessments cannot be founded on surmises and conjectures is well-established. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessing officer did not reject the assessee's trading account or find any stock discrepancies. The estimation of sales turnover was solely based on the assumption that income under 'Other Sources' was from sales, without independent verification. Application of Law to Facts: The absence of proof of stock variation or incorrect books, combined with the assessee discharging the initial burden of proof, made the assessing officer's approach flawed. Conclusions: The best judgment assessment was not justified as it lacked independent findings and was based on impermissible assumptions. Issue 4: Adoption of 8% Gross Profit Benchmark Without Comparable Data Relevant Legal Framework: Benchmarking for gross profit margins requires comparable data or relevant material to justify the percentage adopted for estimating turnover. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessing officer applied an 8% benchmark gross profit rate over the disputed amount without producing or relying on any comparable data or justification. Application of Law to Facts: The absence of comparable data rendered the adoption of the 8% benchmark arbitrary and unjustified. Conclusions: The estimation of sales turnover based on the 8% gross profit benchmark without supporting data was improper. Issue 5: Eligibility for Benefit Under Section 25AA(3) of the Kerala VAT Act and Prospective Operation Relevant Legal Framework: Section 25AA(3) of the Kerala VAT Act provides certain benefits regarding assessment procedures, with prospective operation. The Court considered precedent laid down in Souparnika Project & Infrastructure v. State of Kerala regarding the interpretation and applicability of this provision. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the prospective nature of Section 25AA(3) and confirmed that the benefit is not retrospective. The learned counsel for the assessee raised this issue, but the Court did not find it determinative in the present facts since the assessment was flawed on other grounds. Conclusions: The assessee is eligible for the benefit under Section 25AA(3) prospectively, and the precedent cited is correct. However, this issue was ancillary to the main findings on assessment validity. Additional Observations The Court emphasized that reopening or best judgment assessment under Section 25(1) cannot be based solely on reports or findings from intelligence or penalty proceedings without independent enquiry. The assessing officer's failure to conduct an independent enquiry and reliance on assumptions violated principles of natural justice and statutory mandates. The concurrent findings of the authorities below were set aside for failure to apply the law correctly and for ignoring the assessee's explanation and evidence. Final Conclusion The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the assessment order dated 17.10.2017 and the orders of the first appellate authority and tribunal confirming it. The questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that the assessment based on income under 'Other Sources' without evidence linking it to sales turnover was impermissible and the best judgment assessment was unsustainable.