M/S.HOTEL AIDA vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27828/2014HC KeralaKLHC01073448201411 January 2023Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition, following its earlier decision in ST. Rev. No. 21/2014, which dealt with the very same issue for the assessment year 2010-11. In that prior case, the question of law was answered against the dealer (the petitioner) and in favour of the Department. Therefore, applying the same reasoning, the present writ petition is dismissed. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate statutory authorities if advised. The specific reasoning from the prior judgment that led to the dismissal of the question of law against the dealer is not detailed in this judgment, but the principle applied is that the method of fixation of tax liability in the impugned orders is upheld.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Aida, a bar attached hotel, is challenging orders (Ext.P7 series) that fixed its tax liability under Section 7(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The impugned orders determined the tax liability for subsequent years based on the tax commuted on a turnover basis for previous years. The petitioner is aggrieved by this method of calculation, specifically the use of previous years' turnover-based tax liability to fix the liability for the current assessment years under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner had previously litigated a similar issue for the assessment year 2010-11 before the High Court in ST. Rev. No. 21/2014.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the fixation of tax liability under Section 7(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for subsequent assessment years, based on the tax commuted on a turnover basis for previous years, is legally sustainable? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the method of calculating tax liability under Section 7 of the Act by using previous years' turnover-based tax as a basis for subsequent years is incorrect. The petitioner is aggrieved by this specific calculation method. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the dismissal of the writ petition implies that the revenue's position, as upheld by the Court, supports the impugned orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 7(b),Section 7,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 27828 OF 2014 PETITIONER: M/S.HOTEL AIDA M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MOHAN JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS:

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ON DEPUTATION TO COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE (KVAT), KOTTAYAM-686001.

COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. OTHER PRESENT: GP SMT RESMITHA R. CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2.. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 series orders fixing the tax liability of the petitioner under Section 7(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, by relying on the tax commuted on turnover basis for previous years. 2. The petitioner, a bar attached hotel, opted payment of tax under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner is aggrieved by the calculation of liability under Section 7 of the Act by fixing the liability for previous years under Section 5 of the Act on turnover basis and making the same as a basis for fixation for the subsequent years. 3. The very same issue in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, was under consideration before this Court in ST. Rev. No.21/2014 filed by the very same petitioner, which has been finally decided and dismissed by this Court. The question of law has been answered against the dealer and in favour of the Department.

..3.. Following the order in ST. Rev. No.21/2014, this writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory authorities, in accordance with law, if so advised. SD/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-

..4.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27828/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBTI P1: COPY OF RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DATED 28.4.2009. EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 29.4.2010. EXHIBIT P1(B): COPY OF RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P1(C): COPY OF RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 7 FOR 2008-09 DATED 11.3.2009. EXHIBIT P2(B): COPY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 7 FOR 2009-10 DATED 14.1.2010. EXHIBIT P2(B): COPY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 7 FOR 2011-12 DATED 1.2.2012. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER IN STA 137/10 OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 29.5.2010. EXHIBIT P3(A): COPYOF ORDER IN TA 38/11 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.9.2013. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 20.9.2011. EXHIBIT P4(A): COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 21.1.2013.

..5.. EXHIBIT P4(B): COPY ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 27.3.2012. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF NOTICE/S 7(II) ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF LETTER FILED BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.8.2014. EXHIBIT P6(A): COPY OF THE LETER FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2009. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF ORDER PASSEED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR 2008-09 DATED EXHIBIT P7(A): COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2009-10 DATED EXHIBIT P7(B): COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR 2010-11 DATED EXHIBIT P7(C): COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR 2011-12 DATED

More judgments on Section 7

All 296 judgments and leading authorities on Section 7 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →