M/S Bma Associates vs State Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 2069 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.667 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER/S:

                M/S BMA ASSOCIATES, 17/2A, GULF BAZAR, BANK ROAD,
                KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 001,
                REP.BY ITS PARTNER SADIKALI A.A.

                BY ADV. SMT.M.K.HAJARA

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE III,
                STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, KOZHIKODE 673 020

      2         STATE TAX OFFICER (IB)
                STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT,
                KOZHIKODE 673 020

      3         DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT,
                KOZHIKODE 673 020




                 SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.667 OF 2021           2



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of January 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that Ext.P5 revised assessment order is based on the order at

Ext.P3 imposing penalty. The penalty order was issued by the 2 nd

respondent only on the basis of allegations that the petitioner had

effected local purchase of mobile and mobile accessories from

Snas Traders. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the said trader have given Ext.P7 declaration which

was incorporated in the reply to the revision of assessment by the

petitioner. However, assessment was effected without considering

Ext.P7 declaration and the contentions raised in the reply of the

petitioner dated 10.12.2020.

3. Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition by

contending that as the statutory remedy of appeal is prescribed,

the matter touching merits of the assessment order cannot be

examined in writ jurisdiction by this Court.

4. As the statutory remedy of filing an appeal challenging

the revised assessment is available to the petitioner, the petition

is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative

remedy of filing statutory appeal, if so advised. If the petitioner

files appeal as prescribed, the appellate authority shall keep in

mind the period of pendency of this writ petition before this

Court.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                A.M.BADAR
ajt                                               JUDGE





                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
                       UNDER KVAT RULES 2005 DATED 4.5.2010

EXHIBIT P2             A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT

ORDER NO.32110834487/15-16 DATED 26.3.19

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER ISSUED BY THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) KOZHIKODE DATED 29.1.2020

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED TO SNAS TRADERS DATED 23.3.2020

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 25(1) OF KVAT ACT FOR 2015-16 DATED 21.12.2020

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.12.20202

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY SNAS TRADERS DATED 10.12.2020

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY SNAS TRADERS ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 11.6.2020

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED PENALTY ORDER NO.IB.1/93/16-17/A DATED 12/11/2020