M/S.K.V.R.Motors vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1210 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

                                   &

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                         OT.Rev.No.154 OF 2015

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 72/2014 DATED 10-12-2014 OF
               AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

                M/S.K.V.R.MOTORS
                WEST HILL,KOZHIKODE,REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
                P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,S/O LATE RAMAN NAIR.

                BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

RESPONDENT/S:

                STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
                COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOZHIKODE.


                SR GP SHAMSUDDIN V K

     THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.75/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

                              2


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

                              &

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                    OT.Rev.No.75 OF 2016

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTHERS 188/2014 DATED 30-09-
        2015 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            M/S.K.V.R.MOTORS, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE
            WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE,REPRESENTED BY ITS
            PROPRIETOR.

            BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

RESPONDENT/S:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
            COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),COMMERCIAL TAXES,
            KOZHIKODE.


     THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.01.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.154/2015, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

                                  3




                             ORDER

[ OT.Rev.154/2015, OT.Rev.75/2016 ]

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

S.V.BHATTI,J.

M/s.K.V.R Motors, Kozhikode/the dealer registered under

Kerala Value Added Tax, is the petitioner in these two revisions. The

revisions relate to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09

respectively. The petitioner/assessee challenges the order of

Tribunal in T.A.(VAT) No.72/2014 dated 10.12.2014 and TA.(VAT)

No.188/2014 dated 30.09.2015 in the instant revision petitions.

2. The assessee is a dealer selling three and two-wheeler

motor vehicles and spare parts. The Assessing Officer under Section

25(1) of KVAT Act, revised the returns of the assessee for the subject

assessment years with respect to warranty amount claimed and

received by the assessee from the supplier of the vehicles, non-

disclosure of complete amount received from the supplier of vehicles.

The amount received towards vehicle service rendered in the OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

workshop of the assessee was not properly accounted for, and the

assessee is entitled to claim 25% of total turnover from workshop

towards labour charges and the balance of 75% as excisable to tax.

The assessee is not entitled to claim the levy of tax at 4% on the

turnover shown for respective years for sale of vehicle to buyers

from Lakshadweep. The details of Input Tax from the local buyers are

incorrect and rejected.

3. The assessing Officer revised the returns and claimed

balance tax payable together with interest from the assessee. The

assessee appealed the order of Assessing Officer and the appeal was

dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-I. The assessee

filed the second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal through the

impugned order, dismissed the appeal. Hence the Revisions.

4. Learned Advocate R.Ramadas appearing for the petitioner,

by referring to the material on record, challenges the findings of the

authorities and Tribunal. The submissions though are refined to

bring the question within the ambit of this Court under Section 63 of

the Act, we are of the view that, after taking note of the basis for

recording the findings of fact by the Tribunal etc., we are convinced OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

not to examining the grounds raised by the assessee more than

required. To explain the reasons for our view, we may illustratively

refer to the manner in which the Tribunal independently considered

the objections of the assessee as follows:

5. The warranty claim received was shown as Rs.26,75,062/-

during the year 2005-06. But for the purpose of turnover the assessee

shown Rs.23,29,468/- as credited. The assessee desires to claim a

lesser amount than what is declared by the assessee. This claim is

rightly not accepted by all the three authorities. Similarly, the total

amount received by the assessee from the workshop is to the tune of

Rs.73,66,573.23. The Assessing Officer after verifying the books,

accepted 25% of the said amount as representing labour charges and

balance 75% representing the sale of consumables etc., by the

assessee. The assessee failed to prove that the 100% claimed

represents anything, other than turnover coming under the levy of

VAT. This ground is independently considered by the Tribunal, a

finding of fact is recorded. The other additions are considered by the

Tribunal in the same fashion and findings of fact are recorded. The

issue relating to the mode and manner of proof of sale to a person in OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

favour of Lakshadweep is covered by the judgment of this Court in

ST.Rev. No.86 of 2012.

We are satisfied that the questions raised do not merit

consideration and re-examination of findings of fact recorded by

Tribunal and Appellate Authority. No question for interference is

made out. Both the revisions fail and accordingly, the O.T revisions

are dismissed.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

JS OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF OT.Rev 154/2015

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2010 IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD 2005-2006 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, KOZHIKODE.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2012 IN V.A.T.A. 1284/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2014 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE AS T.A.(VAT) NO.72/2014(OLD NO.334/2013 OF PALAKKAD)

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF CREDIT NOTE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIMEN COPY OF THE WORKSHOP BILL

ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN THE WORKSHOP SECTION AND THE CATEGORY WISE TURNOVER VIZ, SALES TURNOVER OF SPARES AND LUBRICANTS AND LABOUR CHARGES

ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF LEDGER

ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE PERIOD 2004-05

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF SALES RETUNRS

ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

ANNEXURE K TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2005

ANNEXURE L TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER EXTRACTS OT.Rev.Nos.154 OF 2015 & 75 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF OT.Rev 75/2016 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2011 IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE- II, KOZHIKODE.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 IN V.A.T.A. 705/11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2015 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE AS T.A.(VAT) NO.188/2014