Case Law Details
State of Kerala Vs KMA Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition against its earlier ruling concerning the levy of a 5% tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act on the total turnover of bar-attached hotels. The case, State of Kerala Vs KMA Resorts Pvt. Ltd, has drawn significant attention for its implications on the hospitality sector, particularly during the challenging times brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Detailed Analysis: The review petition sought to overturn the High Court’s decision dated November 30, 2023, which affirmed the imposition of a 5% turnover tax on bar-attached hotels for specific periods during the pandemic. The Court meticulously reviewed submissions from both sides, analyzing documents and the legal framework underpinning the KGST Act.
Key points from the Court’s findings include:
- The exemption from paying interest on delayed filing and payment of turnover tax for transactions completed within specified dates.
- A clarification that the tax reduction from 10% to 5% was not solely for sales during the COVID-19 lockdown but also for transactions dating back to the fiscal years 2014-15 to 2015-16.
- The Court’s stance on the limited scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation and finding no substantial error warranting a reconsideration of its earlier judgment.
This ruling showcases the Court’s approach in balancing government tax policy against the operational realities faced by businesses during unprecedented times. It also highlights the legal rigour in interpreting tax laws and the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision in State of Kerala Vs KMA Resorts Pvt. Ltd reaffirms the application of a 5% KGST on the total turnover of bar-attached hotels, setting a precedent for how tax laws are applied to the hospitality industry during crisis periods. By dismissing the review petition, the Court underscores the principle of legal finality and the meticulous interpretation of tax statutes. This ruling not only impacts the parties involved but also sets a significant legal benchmark for the hospitality industry in Kerala, particularly in understanding and complying with tax obligations during challenging times.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. Heard Mr. A. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Special Government Pleader for the review petitioners and Mr. Mayankutty Mather for the respondents.
2. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 passed in the batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C) No.23851 of 2023.
3. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, vide the final Judgment and Order under review, held that in cases where the return were filed on or before 31.03.2022 and turnover tax was cleared on or before 30.04.2022 by the FL3 lincencees, for the period from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to 25.09.2021 for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, they would not be liable to pay interest for delayed filing of the returns and payment of turnover tax @ 5% on their parcel sales authorised by the Government during the Covid lock down period. This Court considered all the documents which were placed on record and the submissions of both sides.
4. Mr. A. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Special Government Pleader, however submits that there has occurred an error apparent on the face of the record which occasioned the review petitioners to seek review of the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Court. He further submits that the reduction of tax from 10% to 5% was not limited only in respect of the sale effected by the Bar attached Hotels during the Covid lock down period but, the exemption was granted for the period from 2014-15 to 2015- 16 as per the Cabinet Note placed on record as Annexure (A) by which the decision was taken to amend Section 7A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The exemption from payment of tax up to 5% by the Bar attached Hotels on their parcel sales, would not mean that they were not required to pay the tax @ 10%, but they could have claimed refund of the 5% tax and, therefore, they were liable to pay the interest on delayed payment of turnover tax. He further submits that the proposal to reduce the tax from 10% to 5% in the cabinet decision has to be considered in that respect. Mr. A. Muhammed Rafiq has also placed reliance on Annexure (B) of the review petition which is the decision of the Cabinet. Relevant portion of Annexure (B) reads as under;
“Decision : Proposal (1) of Note accepted.
(2) the suggestion in the note was considered. It has been decided to extend the time for filing of the returns till March 31, 2022 and till April 30, 2022 for payment of arrears.”
5. On the other hand, Mr. K. I. Mayankutty Mather, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Annexure (A) document placed on record i.e. the note put up before the Cabinet for consideration regarding the reduction of turnover tax for the period during lock down from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to 25.09.2021 is specific that the Bar attached Hotels and shops were required to pay 5% of the turnover tax as is applicable in respect of the retail outlets run by the Beverages Corporation. In pursuance to the said cabinet note, the cabinet has taken the decision and, thereafter, Exhibit P-2 was issued notifying the rate of turnover tax.
5.1. Once the notification was issued, the respondents herein have remitted the tax, as per the time extended for filing the return and remittance of tax. This Court has considered every aspect of the matter, the submissions and documents placed on record. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which requires this Court to review its well considered Judgment dated 30.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 23851 of 2023 and connected matters.
6. I have considered the submissions. Review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there an is error apparent on the face of the record. This Court has considered each and every document and the submissions while rendering the Judgment dated 30.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.23851 of 2023 and connected matters. Furthermore, these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal. There has to be finality to a litigation. This Court, based on the submissions, documents and evidences, has rendered the Judgment sought to be reviewed. Therefore, I find no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court to reconsider this Judgment under review. There is no substance in this review petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Author Bio
