ASHLYN CHEMMANNOOR INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX

OT.REV NO. 40 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER in TAVAT 109/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

ASHLYN CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. KARIKAT LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR-ASHLYN ANTONY.

BY ADVS.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON; SRI.P.S.APPU

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ASSSISTANT COMMISSIONER(KVAT),SPECIAL CIRCLE,THRISSUR.

OTHER PRESENT:

SPL. GP MOHD RAFIQ

13.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).16505/2022, 116/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 16505 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S:

ASHLYN CHEMMANNOOR INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED T.C. 25/668/11, REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUNITHA ASHLYN.

REDLANDS ASHLYN MOTORS PLC, REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUNITHA ASHLYN.

BY ADVS. T.C.SURESH MENON M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON ; B.DEEPAK

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR - 680004.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR - 680004.

OT.REV NO. 116 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 153/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

M/S.ASHLYN CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PVT.LTD. KARIKATT LANE, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR-680001, REP. BY ITS WHOLE

OT.REV NO. 81 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 154/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

ASHLYN CHEMANNOOR INSTRUMENTS PVT.LTD., KARIKATT LANE, M.G. ROAD. THRISSUR 680 001. REP. BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR ASHLYN ANTONY.

(KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE THRISSUR.

OT.REV NO. 50 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 115/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

ASHLYN CHEMANNOOR INSTRUMENTS PVT.LTD., KARIKATT LANE, M.G. ROAD. THRISSUR 680 001. REP. BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR ASHLYN ANTONY.

SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON; SRI.P.S.APPU

(KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE THRISSUR.

OT.REV NO. 104 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 116/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

KARIKATT LANE, M,G,ROAD, THRISSUR-68 001, REP BY THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR-ASHLYN ANTONY

BY ADVS.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON

(KVAT)SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

OT.REV NO. 6 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 120/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

OT.REV NO. 51 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 112/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

OT.REV NO. 79 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 111/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

OT.REV NO. 57 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 113/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

OT.REV NO. 61 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 110/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

OT.REV NO. 7 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 119/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR.

OT.REV NO. 54 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 118/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

KARIKATT LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001, REP. BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR - ASHLYN ANTONY.

OT.REV NO. 52 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 114/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

M/S.ASHLYN CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD KARIKATT LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR-ASHLYN ANTONY.

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR.

OT.REV NO. 103 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 117/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

M/S.ASHLYN CHEMUNNOOR INSTRUMENTS PVT LTD, KARIKATT LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680001, REP. BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR- ASHLYN ANTONY.

WP(C) NO. 40663 OF 2018 PETITIONER/S:

REDLANDS ASHLYN MOTORS PLC, REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, ASHLYN ANTONY

ASHLYN CHEMMANNOOR INSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., TC 25/668/11, REGENCY COMPLEX, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001, REPRESENTED BY WHOLE TIM,E DIRECTOR ASHLYN ANTONY

BY ADV M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASST.) SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR 680 004

O R D E R [OT.Rev Nos.40/2019, WP(C) No.16505/2022, OT Rev Nos.116/2020, 81/2020, 50/2020, 104/2020, 6/2020, 51/2020, 79/2020, 57/2020, 61/2020, 7/2020, 54/2019, 52/2019, 103/2020, & WP(C)No.40663/2018]

S.V.Bhatti, J. Heard Mr M Unnikrishna Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Mohammed Rafiq, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent. 2. M/s. Ashlyn Chemunnoor Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Thrissur and Redlands Ashlyn Motors PLC (a sister concern)/ dealers are registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’). The Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Thrissur, representing the State/Department is

the contesting respondent. The parties are common in the writ petitions as well as O T Revisions. The issue arising in the batch of cases, both in fact and law, is the same. The differentiating circumstance is the assessment years during which the issues have arisen. The cases, hence, are disposed of by this common order. 2.1 The batch cases, for convenience, is classified as W.P.(C) No.40663/2018 and W.P.(C) No.16505/2022 as one group wherein the assessment order is challenged, or notice issued under Rule 6(5) of Central Sales Tax Kerala Rules 1957 is challenged. O.T. Revisions, the other category, are directed against the common order dated 01.02.2019 in TA (VAT) Nos.109/17 and connected cases. The details of the year of assessment and order against which the tax appeal is filed in

this Court, both in the Writ Petitions and O T Revisions, are stated thus: W.P.(C)s Assessment year Order of the Dy. Modified Assessment order of the Asst. Order of the Tribunal W.P.(C)

KVATA 10/16

32080788022/2013-14 dtd 29.12.2018 (Ext.15)

32080788022/2014-15 dtd 01.01.2019 (Ext.16) Common order of the Tribunal dtd 40663/2018

Common order of the Tribunal dtd 16505/2022

O.T. Revisions Assessment year Order of the Dy. Modified Assessment order of the Asst.

Order of the Tribunal O.T.Rev.

No.109/2017 dtd 40/2019

No.154/2017 dtd 81/2020

No.114/2017 dtd 52/2019

No.118/2017 dtd 54/2019

No.120/2017 dtd 6/2020

No.119/2017 dtd 7/2020

No.115/2017 dtd 50/2020

No.112/2017 dtd 51/2020

No.113/2017 dtd 57/2020

No.110/2017 dtd 61/2020

No.111/2017 dtd 79/2020

No.117/2017 dtd 103/2020

No.116/2017 dtd 104/2020

No.153/2017 dtd 116/2020

9027.90.90 and 9033.30.90. The dealer claims the product imported and sold in the Domestic Tariff Area as exigible at 5% tax. The Department contested the classification claimed by the dealer both by referring to the HSN Codes under which the product had been imported and on the ground that the product, since is not described in any one of the schedules under the KVAT Act, is exigible to tax at 14.5%. In this background, we find it convenient to refer to W.P. (C) No.40663/2018 as the lead case and disposal of the said writ petition will have bearing on the O.T. Revisions and W.P.(C) No.16505/2022. W.P.(C) No.40663/2018

14 and 2014-15 respectively. The petitioner imported the commodity and sold the commodity in favour of M/s.Ashlyn Chemunnoor Instruments Pvt. Ltd (the petitioner in O.T. Revisions), a sister concern. The commodity has been imported under the HSN Codes referred to above. At the first instance, the Department classified the commodity as Spectrometer and levied tax at 14.5%. The petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and vide order dated 26.05.2017 the appeal filed against the assessment orders dated 29.11.2016 and 18.10.2016 was allowed and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle to assess the classification issue afresh. The operative portion of the order of Deputy Commissioner reads thus: “In view of the above Clarification coupled with the judgments, I am of the view that the assessment was completed without

conducting proper enquiry under law. Therefore, the Assessing Authority is directed to conduct appropriate enquiry and re-do the assessment afresh based on the findings of the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority. For the above purpose, the assessment order is Set aside for fresh disposal. Order accordingly.”

4.1 The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.8879/2018 praying for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle to complete the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment year 2013-14 by keeping in perspective Ext.P1 order dated 26.05.2017. On 15.03.2018, the writ petition was disposed of, and the operative portion reads thus: “3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to complete the assessment as directed in Ext.P1 order, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ordered accordingly.”

The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, Thrissur, vide letter dated 10.01.2018 sought expert opinion from the Executive Engineer (PWD) Electronics Division and the opinion dated 14.02.2018 reads thus: “As per the above reference, Assistant Engineer, PWD Electronics Section. Thrissur, have inspected both the machines, Spectrum analyser and Spectrometer, found both are used for same purpose, to detect the content of element present in the particular object. My opinion is both the machines are one and same. Spectrum analyser may be a scientific name and Spectrometer is a technical name. Analysis report of same objects in both machines found same with permissible tolerance.” After issuing the notice of the proposed assessment, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle Thrissur made the orders dated 29.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Analyser’. 5.1 He further contends that the Department having solicited opinion from a department of the Government specialized in electronic goods ought not to record findings either by ignoring the view expressed by the competent department and/or without contrary material on the classification of commodity as ‘Spectrometer’. The function of the commodity is only to gaze the percentage of gold in ornaments. He refers to the following paragraphs in Order dated 01.01.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 : “ However before finalising the proposal a notice vide ref. 12 cited was issued to the assessee offering an opportunity of personal hearing on 21-12-2018. This notice was communicated to the assessee on 13-12-2018 and duly acknowledged on the same day. On 21-12-2018, the assessee filed another reply which is appended below:

I have verified the reply filed by the assessee in detail. In this reply the assessee stated the chronological details of the incident taken place regarding the assessment procedures and it ends with a cautionary in view that the clear possibility of malice if the assessing authority moves with the assessment procedure. I have considered this reply before finalising the assessment. These points were already considered in detail in the first reply filed by the assessee. The commodities in the schedules are allotted with code Numbers which are developed by the International Customs Organization as Harmmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) and adopted by the Customs Tariff Act 1975. Verification of the assessment records, revealed that the assessee imported machines under three HSN codes namely 9022.90.90, 9022.19.00 and 9027.90.90 (as per bill of entry) and misclassified the same under HSN code as 9030.33.90 and paid tax @ 5% as an IT product. The three HSN codes namely HSN 9022.90.90, 9022.19.00 and 9027.90.90 which do not find a place in any of the schedules of KVAT Act 2003. As such the rate of tax would be 14.5% under entry 103 of the list of RNR goods. Here the assessee deliberately and meticulously misclassified the rate of goods imported with an ulterior intention to evade tax legitimately due to the government. In

this circumstances, the difference in tax is assessed for the assessment year 2014-15. However, before finalising the assessment procedure the assessee was given two opportunities for personal hearing and the assessee availed these opportunities and filed reply.”

These very findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner (Special Circle) that the HSN codes by reference to which the commodity has been imported, do not find place in the KVAT Act 2003. Therefore, automatically applicable rate is 14.5% under Entry 103. It is in this background, according to him, that the appellate authority directed the taking of evidence, and passing of fresh orders. It is also argued that the function of the product should have been the guiding factor for determining the applicable tax and it is onerous to bracket the commodity under Entry 103, merely because the HSN code, by referring to

which the commodity has been imported, does not have corresponding entries in the schedule under the KVAT Act.

We have noted the contentions raised by both sides and perused the record.

7.1 The dealer/petitioner assails the assessment orders in Exts.P15 and P16 as violative of principles of natural justice, as contrary to the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vided order dated 26.05.2017, and direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8879/2018. The principal argument is that by referring to the chronology of events on 26.05.2017 the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeals filed by the dealer/petitioner. Therefore, the classification adopted, at the first instance, was set aside and in view of the nature of the controversy specific directions have been given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Department, having felt the need, obtained the opinion from the Executive Engineer Electronics Division Thrissur. The opinion is categorical to classify the commodity as ‘Spectrum

Analyser’. 7.2 Secondly, the Assistant Commissioner (Special Circle) cannot be said to have denied an opportunity to the dealer/ petitioner while making assessment orders in Exts.P15 and P16. But, the inadequacy in either consideration or procedural fairness would certainly arise from the opportunity availed by the dealer/petitioner and consideration of grounds/materials brought on record while making the orders in Exts.P15 and P16. The classification in the case on hand ought to have been undertaken firstly from the product details, the purpose of the product, commercial utility, HSN codes etc by referring to which commodity was imported, and Annexure 1 of the KVAT Act which deals with rules on interpretation. The findings for classifying the commodity as ‘spectrometer’ is on a converse

basis, namely that since Spectrum analyser is not one of the commodities described in the schedule of the KVAT Act, the commodity shall be treated as Spectrometer falling under Entry 103. 7.3 In matters involving classification, which would have an implication on the rate of tax applicable on the sale of the commodity, judicious and legal adjudication are expected and would be appreciated. Therefore, we notice that the orders in Exts.P15 and P16 have not recorded findings on the objections/reasons taken by the dealer. The writ petition, since is admitted, at this point of time, instead of directing the dealer to avail the remedy of appeal, where the very same ground, lack of proper consideration, would be urged; to avoid further delay, we are convinced to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction, set

aside the orders in Exts.P15 and P16 and remit the matter to Assistant Commissioner for consideration and disposal afresh. In view of the order of remand, we have not examined the merits of the matter. All issues are left open for consideration by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. W.P.(C) No.16505/2022 8. Redlands Ashlyn Motors PLC is the petitioner. The petitioner is a sister concern of M/s. Ashlyn Chemunnor Instruments Pvt Ltd Thrissur. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax issued notice under Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax Kerala Rules 1957 proposing to revise the assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act. The basis of the notice principally is the determination of applicable sales tax on ‘Spectrum Analyser’ at 14.5% in the assessment of Redlands

Ashlyn Motors PLC. The assessment orders are set aside in W.P.(C) No. 40663/2018. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner Special Circle Thrissur. The writ petition challenges the notices issued proposing modification to the assessment already made. In view of the setting aside of orders dated 29.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 made in favour of Redlands Ashlyn Motors PLC the petitioner herein is given liberty to file reply, subject to the outcome of orders being made by the Assistant Commissioner on remand in W.P.(C) No.40663/2018. By granting the liberty to file reply or objection the writ petition is disposed of. O.T. Revision Nos. 9. M/s. Ashlyn Chemunnoor Instruments Pvt Ltd is the petitioner in the O.T. Revisions. The Revisions are filed against

the common order dated 01.02.2019 of the Tribunal. The details of Assessment Year etc are stated in the tabular form and are not reiterated. The petitioner questions the order of remand made by the Tribunal as illegal and avoidable. The operative portion reads as follows: “32. The only other appeal which remains for our consideration is TA VAT 799/17 which is an appeal field by the assessee relating to the CST assessment for the year 2014-15. In this appeal, the following two contentions have been raised before us: "2. The interference in the figures computed and filed before the assessing authority by way of statutory audit report is very much limited and at any cost it should not disturbed the accounting principles. Here in this case, the assessing authority has wrongly interfered with the figures of trading result under the pretext of best judgment of estimation. 3.Credit notes produced to the extent of ₹1,37,147/- is not considered is improper and not reconciling with the best judgment assessment, when tallied and judged with the audited statement."

9.1 One of the grounds urged at the time of filing the O.T. Rev. has been that the Tribunal should have examined the material on record independently and decided the issue of classification and applicable rate of tax, instead of remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for disposal afresh. Secondly, the remand was considered by the Tribunal having regard to the fact that in respect of the same commodity which

has been purchased from Redlands Ashlyn Motors PLC, a sister concern of revision petitioner herein, the issue was remanded for consideration. 10. As noted above, on remand fresh assessment orders were made against Redlands Ashlyn Motors PLC dated 29.12.2018 and 01.01.2019. In the instant common order, we have considered the grounds raised against the said orders and have set aside the assessment orders, remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration and disposal afresh. The net effect of the above conclusion is that whether the classification issue pending before the Assistant Commissioner is present or not on the date when the common order was made by the Tribunal. The review of the order of remand in the batch of cases is not available since the issue of classification was

pending before the Assistant Commissioner, and even now because of our views in W.P.(C) No.40663/2018. We are of the view that the remand is justified and hence confirmed. O T Revisions fail. 11. We have seen the consideration on the classification, adjudication etc leading to independent assessment orders in the cases of two dealers but same commodity. The commodity involved in both cases is one and the same. Therefore, this Court directs the Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the issues now remitted to him, by setting aside Exts.P15 and P16 dated 29.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 and also the returns filed in the OT Revisions, on the same day to maintain consistency in procedure and opportunity. The dealers may be afforded an opportunity to place material/ evidence as may be advised

before the Assistant Commissioner (Special Circle). The dealers since are independent and separate, though enquiry is scheduled, on the same day, independent orders are passed to avoid confusion in the matters.

Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16505/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ORDER NO.C3/36047/15/CT, DATED 31.5.2016. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE KVAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM, DATED 1.2.2019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 24.1.2018. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THRISSUR, DATED 14.2.2018. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER, DATED 28.10.2016. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, DATED 8.11.2016. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.40663/2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 21.12.2018. Exhibit P8 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 UNDER KVAT ISSUED BY Exhibit P9 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 UNDER KVAT ISSUED BY

Exhibit P10 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 UNDER KVAT ISSUED BY Exhibit P11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 UNDER KVAT, Exhibit P12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 UNDER KVAT, Exhibit P13 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 UNDER KVAT, Exhibit P14 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 UNDER CST ISSUED BY Exhibit P15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 UNDER CST ISSUED BY Exhibit P16 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 UNDER CST ISSUED BY Exhibit P17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 UNDER CST, Exhibit P18 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 UNDER CST,

Exhibit P19 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 UNDER CST, Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.3294/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 1.2.2017.

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 116/2020

VERIFICATION REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT.

14 DATED 26.05.2017. ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR THE ASSESSEMENT YEAR 2014-2015 DATED 26.05.2017.

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 81/2020

(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM DATED

CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ENGINEER RAJENDRA.S. 2014 DATED 29.11.2016. 2015 DATED 18.10.2016 ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR AY 2013-2014. DATED ASHYLYN MOTORS PLC FOR AY 2014-20015 DATED

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 104/2020

ANNEXURE-A PREASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY U/S 25 (1) DATED 11.09.2015 ANNEXURE-B REPLY TO PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 22.09.2015 ANNEXURE-C ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION DATED 26.05.2015 ANNEXURE-E ANNEXURE-F 20.02.2017 FILED BY THE STATE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE-G ORDER OF KVAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKLAM DATED 01.02.2019 ANNEXURE-H 10.01.2018 ANNEXURE-I COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE THRISSUR-24.01.2018

ANNEXURE-J THE CERTIFICATE OF THE INSPECTOR, BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, ELECTRONIC DIVISION, DATED 14.,02.2018 ANNEXURE-K CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ENGINEERS RAJENDRA S.THAMBI DATED 28.10.2016 ANNEXURE-L CERTIFICATE FROM AUTOMATIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD 08.11.2016 ANNEXURE-M 2014 DATED 29.11.2016 ANNEXURE-N ASHLYN MOTORS PC FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 2015 DATED 18.10.2016 ANNEXURE-O TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RELANDS ASHLYN MOTORS PC FOR AY 2013-2014 DATED 29.12.2018 ANNEXURE-P ASHLYN MOTORS PC FOR AY 2014-2015 DATED 01.01.2019

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 6/2020

CERTIFICATE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF REDLANDS ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR THE ASSESMENT YEAR 2013-2014 DATED 26.05.2017. 2015 DATED 26.05.2012.

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 79/2020

(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM DATED

CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ENGINEER RAJENDRA.S. TRUE COPY OF THE APPELALTE ORDER OF REDLANDS 2014 DATED 26.05.2017. 2015 DATED 26.05.2017. ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR AY 2013-2014. DATED ASHYLYN MOTORS PLC FOR AY 2014-20015 DATED

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 7/2020

CERTIFICATE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF REDLANDS ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR THE ASSESMENT YEAR 2013-2014 DATED 20.05.2017. 2015 DATED 26.05.2017.

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 54/2019

AUTHORITY U/S. 25(1) DATED 11/09/2015. REPLY TO PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 22/09/2015. 30/09/2015. 26/05/2015. 22/08/2016. 20/02/2017 FILED BY THE STATE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DATED 01/02/2019. 10/01/2018. 24/01/2018.

14/02/2018. S.THAMBI DATED 28/10/2016. CERTIFIED FROM ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD 08/11/2016. 2014 DATED 26/5/2017. 2015 DATED 26/5/2017. 29/12/2018. 01/01/2019.

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 52/2019

AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 25(1) dated 11.09.2015. COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR DATED

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE INSPECTION BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRONIC DIVISION DATED 14.02.2018. CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ENGINEER RAJENDRA S ASHYLN MOTORS PLC FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 104 DATED 29.11.2016. 2015 DATED 18.10.2016.

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 103/2020

AUTHORITY U/S.25(1) DATED 11.9.2015. REPLY TO PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 22.9.2015. TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION DATED 26.5.2015. 22.8.2016. 20.2.2017 FILED BY THE STATE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DATED 1.2.2019. 10.1.2018.

14.2.2018. 2014 DATED 26.5.2017. 2015 DATED 26.5.2017. ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR A7 2014-2015 DATED 1.1.2019.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40663/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ORDER NO. C3/36047/15CT DATED 31.5.2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.5.2017 FOR ASSMT YEAR 2013-2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.5.2017 FOR ASSMT YEAR 2014-2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 24.1.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ELECTRONICS DIVISION DATED 14.2.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEER DATED 28/10/2016 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AERB DATED 8.11.2016 EXHIBIT P8 RESPONDENT U/S 25 (A) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 3.12.2018 FOR AY 2013-14

EXHIBIT P9 RESPONDENT U/S 25 (A) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 3.12.2018 FOR AY 2014-15

APPENDIX OF OT.REV 40/2019

AUTHORITY U/S. 25(1) DATED 11.9.2015. 22.8.2016.

ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 DATED 29.11.2016. ASHLYN MOTORS PLC FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DATED 26.5.2017.

O T REVISION NO.57/2020

APPENDIX OF O T REV 51/2020

APPENDIX IN O T REV 50/2020

APPENDIX IN O T REV NO.61/2020