Kerala High Court
Usha Bagri, Krishna Granites & Ceramics vs The Assistant Commissioner on 11 June, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34004 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
USHA BAGRI,
AGED 35 YEARS
PROPRIETRESS, KRISHNA GRANITES & CERAMICS NH 47- BYE
PASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 024
BY ADV SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KVAT SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 015
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-II
AUDIT ASSESSMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES,ERNAKULAM, CIRCLE, 682 015
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.34004/2015 -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in the business of Marbles,
Granite, Vitrified tiles, cemamic tiles and wall tiles etc. According to the
petitioner while uploading the annual returns for the year 2014-15, the
statement of closing stock as on 28-05-2015 (Ext.P2) was uploaded instead of
the closing stock as on 31-03-2015. It is the case of the petitioner that on
noticing the mistake the petitioner filed Ext.P1 before the Assessing Authority
and requested for permission to correct the mistake. Exhibit P1 is an E-mail
communication sent by the petitioner on 14-09-2015. However, the petitioner
was served with Exts.P6 to P8 notices. Exhibit P6 pertains to the year 2014-15
and Exts.P7 and P8 pertain to the months of April and May of 2015. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that these notices are issued
after the petitioner intimated the mistake committed while uploading the
statement of closing stock filed in terms of the provisions contained in Rule
22 (3)(v) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 ('the 2005 Rules'). It it
submitted that the 2nd respondent is taking the stand that there is no
provision to enable the filing of a revised copy of stock inventory as on 31-03-
2015.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that
though there is provision for correction of returns in terms of the provisions
contained in Rule 22 of the 2005 Rules, the said Rule does not appear to
cover documents required to be uploaded along with the returns in terms of
sub-rule (3) of Rule 22. It is submitted that it is for the petitioner to suitably
respond to Exts.P6 to P8 notices, which were, thereafter, be finalized by the
respondent in accordance with the law.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an
order permitting him to file / upload a revised stock statement as of 31-03-
2015. Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 of the 2005 Rules contemplate the filing of a
revised return where the dealer detects any omission or mistake in the return
submitted by him under sub rule (1) of Rule 22. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 deals
with the documents that have to be uploaded by the dealer along with the
return filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22. In the facts of the present case the
mistake on the part of the petitioner was that she uploaded the stock
inventory as on 28-05-2015 instead of the stock inventory as on 31-03-2015
[which is the requirement under Rule 22 (3)(v) of the 2005 Rules]. In my
view the provisions of sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 should be interpreted as
permitting the dealer also to revise or correct any mistake in the documents
uploaded along with returns under Rule 22 (1), as any other interpretation
would mean that while the dealer is permitted to revise his return on
detecting a mistake, he cannot correct a mistake in any of the documents
uploaded along with the returns. In the light of the above finding, this writ
petition will stand disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to permit the
petitioner to correct the copy of stock inventory (closing stock) as on 31-03-
2015 which was filed along with the annual returns submitted by the
petitioner for the year 2014-15. Thereafter, the petitioner shall suitably reply
to Exts.P6 to P8 notices. If the 2 nd respondent is satisfied that the mistake
committed by the petitioner was a genuine mistake and considering the fact
that the petitioner herself had brought to the notice of the 2 nd respondent that
such a mistake had been committed (even prior to the issuance of Ext.P6 to
P8 notices), the 2nd respondent shall drop further proceedings against the
petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall take a decision in the matter as directed
above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34004/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING TE ERROR ONE-FILING THE STATMENT OF
CLOSING STOCK, DT. 14/9/15
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSING STOCK INVENTORY WRONGLY UPLOADED
BY THE PETITIONER ON 31/5/15
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUAL CLOSING STOCK INVENTORY AS ON
31/3/15, TO BE FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CLOSING STOCK AS ON 28/5/15,
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON AUDIT VISIT
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 13 & 13A AND THE
CONNECTED ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT FILED BYT EH PETITIONER FOR
14-15, DT. 26/10/15
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 24 BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 14-15 DT. 5/10/15
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 24 BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR THE RETURN PERIOD , APRIL 15 DT. 23/9/15
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 24 BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR THE RETURN PERIOD MAY 15/ DT. 23/9/15
