TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which admittedly the assessee had not disclosed in the returns. The Intelligence Officer gathered details of a contract receipt of the assessee from one M/s. Gulf Asia Contracting Company, RP Mall, Kozhikkode, who was the awarder; during the year 2012-2013. The awarder had disclosed in its returns a payment of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- to the assessee. The awarder had also deducted tax at source and paid it to the Department. The assessee had not revealed the receipt of the said contract amount. Hence, proceedings were taken by the Intelligence Officer, for non-disclosure of the contract receipts. 2. The assessee filed an objection stating that no contract actually was executed and the amounts received was towards mobilisation advance, of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rising is re-framed as follows:- Has not the Tribunal erred in having affirmed the order levying penalty on the receipt shown, without adverting to the objection of the assessee that there was no contract executed and hence, there had been no incidence of sale or accretion of goods to a works contract attracting levy of tax and hence no evasion, which is necessary under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Act, 2003? 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessee at the first stage itself had filed reply dated 12. 06. 2013 to the summons received, produced as Annexure-E wherein it has been categorically stated that the receipt was as mobilisation advance. The assessee also admits to the subsequent communic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be necessarily related to the execution of the works contract and the accretion of goods in such works. 6. We again go back to the penalty order, which is sketchy insofar as there being no consideration as to the incidence for levy of tax. The Intelligence Officer merely found a contract receipt at the hands of the assessee which admittedly was paid by yet another assessee and tax deducted at source. On that basis alone, the Intelligence Officer had deemed the contract to be entirely executed in the subject assessment year and levied tax on the same after deducting the probable labour charges, which we find to be unsustainable. In fact, the Intelligence Officer was aware of the awarder and the awardee and the specific contract, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Traders Vs. State of Kerala], wherein a similar provision of reverse burden came up for consideration, which according to the learned Judges, had to be construed looking at the nature of the statute, there too an enactment levying sales tax on goods. The decision in (2007) 4 SCC 480 [M/s. Co-operative Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax] was referred, to find that under general law, the burden is on the State to prove that there was a taxable transaction and the reverse burden clause would operate only if, first, the State proves that there is a transaction of sale and secondly that one of the persons in the transaction was liable to be registered under the enactment as a dealer. A mere receipt of money, may attract liability to incom....