Kerala High Court
Parisons Foods Private Limited vs The Intelligence Officer on 27 March, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PARIONS ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,
6/1183, KUNHIPARI BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR N K KHALID, PIN - 673032
BY ADVS.
ASWIN GOPAKUMAR
ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
ADITYA VENUGOPALAN
MAHESH CHANDRAN
SARANYA BABU
ANGITA T. MENON
SHALLET K. SAM
RESPONDENT:
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
INTELLIGENCE UNIT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
SMT. RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).10788/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NOs. 10761 & 10788 OF 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10788 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,
6/1183, KUNHIPARI BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR N K KHALID., PIN - 673002
BY ADVS.
ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
ADITYA VENUGOPALAN
MAHESH CHANDRAN
SARANYA BABU
ANGITA T. MENON
SHALLET K. SAM
RESPONDENT:
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
INTELLIGENCE UNIT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).10761/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NOs. 10761 & 10788 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Gopakumar for quite some
time.
2. In these writ petitions, the challenge is against the notices
issued to the petitioner under Section 45A of the Kerala General
Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder ('KGST Act' for
brevity).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices
issued to the petitioner under Section 45A of the KGST Act are
without jurisdiction and without determination of the taxability on
the consumption, the notices are bad in law. He also submitted
that the impugned notices do not specify the person to whom
allegedly the petitioner has sold HSD in open market, which was
meant for its own consumption.
4. It is not in doubt that the sale of petroleum products in the
open market is taxable under the provisions of KGST Act and the
rules made thereunder. The petitioner had obtained the bulk HSD
from Reliance Refinery situated at Mangalore for its own
consumption. The petitioner, instead of consuming the entire
quantity of bulk purchase, allegedly has diverted some portion of
it in the open market without payment of tax. A detailed
WP(C) NOs. 10761 & 10788 OF 2024
investigation was carried out by the Intelligence Wing of the
Directorate General of GST Intelligence, which would demonstrate
that large quantity of HSD purchased by the petitioner from the
Reliance Refinery situated at Mangalore for its own consumption
got diverted in the open market without payment of tax.
5. Therefore, I find no substance in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that without determination of the
taxability of the transaction(s), the notices are bad in law. It cannot
be disputed that the sale in open market of HSD is a taxable event.
6. Whether the petitioner has diverted the bulk HSD
purchased by it for own consumption in the open market or not is a
disputed question of fact, which cannot devolve upon by this Court
in the present writ petitions. The petitioner has filed the reply to
the said show cause notice. Therefore, I do not find any ground to
interrupt the proceedings pending before the respondent in
pursuance to the impugned notice.
7. In the above view of the matter, I find no substance in
these writ petitions, which are hereby dismissed and it is left open
to the petitioner to make all the submissions and lead evidence
which may be available to them in support of their contention that
they had not diverted the HSD in the open market, which was
meant for its own consumption.
WP(C) NOs. 10761 & 10788 OF 2024
With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NOs. 10761 & 10788 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10761/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.12.2023 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLY DATED
08.01.2024
WP(C) NOs. 10761 & 10788 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10788/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLY DATED
09.01.2024
