2018 (6) TMI 1289

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... return filed by them under the Act for the month of September 2015, the value of goods stock transferred was shown incorrectly by mistake. It is also stated by the petitioner that the said mistake has come to their notice only on receipt of the audit report under subsection (1) of Section 42 of the Act. The petitioner, in the circumstances, preferred Ext.P1 application seeking permission to submit revised return to rectify the mistake in the return filed for the relevant year. Ext.P1 application has been rejected by the first respondent in terms of Ext.P6 order holding that if the request of the petitioner is allowed, there will be change in the turnover. According to the first respondent, since the request involves change in the turnover,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udit report of the petitioner for the relevant year was Ext.P2 in the said writ petition and the said audit report is dated 18.01.2017. The petitioner preferred application seeking permission to submit revised return long before the said audit report. As such, the petitioner cannot place reliance on sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act for the purpose of filing the revised return. 4. Of course, the petitioner is entitled to prefer an application seeking permission to submit revised return on their own. Application for the said purpose, however, has to be filed within the time limit prescribed by sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. In terms of the said provision, revised return rectifying the mistake or omiss....