Sri. P.P.Moideen vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2280 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 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                          OT.Rev.No.39 OF 2017

         AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 215/2014 OF
               AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

                SRI. P.P.MOIDEEN
                M/S. CENTRAL STATIONERY, KANNUR.

                BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

RESPONDENT/S:

                STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW),COMMERCIAL
                TAXES, ERNAKULAM.


                GP - SHAMSUDHEEN

     THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 OT.Rev.No.39 OF 2017

                                  2




                             ORDER

Dated this the 20th day of January 2021

S.V.BHATTI,J.

The assessee is the revision petitioner. The revision concerns

with the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-

09. The Commercial Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Kannur revised the

return of assessee, for the assessment year 2008-09 and noted

purchase suppression and added the gross profit to the purchases

suppressed, added two times on probable omission and

suppression. The Assessing Officer finally demanded the tax due

and payable by the assessee as Rs.3,48,246/-. On appeal filed by the

assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Kozhikode, vide

order dated 24.06.2011, found that the contention on value

addition deserves re-consideration in as much as, the purchases

made by the assessee are from TIN dealers. The Assessing Officer,

hence was directed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to OT.Rev.No.39 OF 2017

estimate the purchase suppression on the value addition only and

modify the assessment order accordingly. The State, challenging

the order of Appellate Authority, filed an appeal before the

Tribunal vide TA(VAT) 215/2014. The Tribunal through order

dated 27.04.2016, gave reasons for refusing the prayer of assessee

for re-examining the value addition and rejected the claim of

assessee in this behalf. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of this

Court in Venus Marketing v. State of Kerala 1 and allowed the

appeal filed by the Department. Hence, the O.T revision.

2. The petitioner by referring to the reasons stated before

the Appellate Authority argues that the impugned value addition

and its tax demand are completely illegal.

3. We are of the view that the Tribunal considered the

circumstances available from record and also relied on the

judgment of this Court which dealt with and laid down the

procedure for giving credit to the Input Tax claimed by the

assessee.

1(2011) 19 KTR(Ker) OT.Rev.No.39 OF 2017

4. The Government Pleader further relies on

M.Mohammed Haji v. State of Kerala2 for the same proposition

and argues that the questions raised by the assessee are no more

res integra.

We have perused the principle laid down in both the

judgments; and the reasons given by the Tribunal for allowing the

appeal and are of the view that for just reasons the claim of

petitioner for value addition is rejected. Therefore, no ground

warranting interference is made out. The revision fails,

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

JS 2[2013] 63 VST 317 (Ker) OT.Rev.No.39 OF 2017

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2011 OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN VATA NO.635A/11.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2016 IN T.A.(VAT) NO.215/2014 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL.