Case Law Details
Pragati Gold Private Limited Vs Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that writ petition is misconceived and non-maintainable as petitioner didn’t co-operate for concluding the proceedings by the Tribunal on remand.
Facts- One of petitioner’s employee Mr. Krishnakumar Choudhari was apprehended outside the Cochin International Airport on his arrival from Mumbai on 04.05.2016 with possession of 796 pieces of different gold ornaments weighing 12700.960 grams valued at Rs.3 crores. As Mr. Krishnakumar Choudhari was not carrying any document as prescribed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the purpose of transporting the said quantity of gold ornaments and he was not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, notice u/s. 17A was issued to him demanding security deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- and tax amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- for release of the ornaments. Pursuant to the representation made by Mr. Krishnakumar Choudhari, the value was refixed and fresh notice was issued to him demanding him deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- and tax amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-. Mr. Krishnakumar Choudhari remitted the amount and the gold ornaments seized from him on 04.05.2016 were released to him.
When an adjudication thereafter followed on the issue whether a penalty could be imposed on the petitioner in terms of Section 47 (6) of the KVAT Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.11.2017 upheld the penalty proposed by the Intelligence Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the said order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner in OT (Rev.) No.62 of 2019.
The Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication in the light of the observations made in the Order dated 11.07.2023 passed in OT Revision (VAT) No.62/2019. The petitioner was permitted to raise all the contentions to substantiate his claim on merits regarding imposition of the penalty. Despite the said direction and time frame prescribed by the Division Bench, the petitioner did not corporate for concluding the proceedings by the Tribunal on remand. The petitioner thereafter approached the Division Bench for extension of time. This Court vide Order dated 13.10.2023, two weeks further period allowed for conclusion of the proceedings by the Tribunal. However, the petitioner again in this writ petition has sought for extension of time.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
