Smt. Majusha Sanjith Vs Sales Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court has upheld a learned Single Judge’s decision, reaffirming that factual disputes arising under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ruling, delivered in an appeal filed by Smt. Majusha Sanjith, while largely agreeing with the Single Judge, provided a specific directive to the First Appellate Authority to verify crucial factual claims.
The appellant, Smt. Majusha Sanjith, had initially approached the High Court challenging an assessment order (Ext.P3) issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The crux of the appellant’s grievance was that the Assessing Authority, in completing the assessment, had relied on data from the KVAT Information System (KVATIS). This data indicated substantial purchases made by the appellant from a supplier, M/s. Blue Metals, which were not recorded in the appellant’s books of accounts and were consequently treated as suppressed purchases.
The appellant’s core contention before the Assessing Authority, and subsequently before the High Court, was a denial of having effected these alleged purchases from M/s. Blue Metals. The appellant further claimed that M/s. Blue Metals had, in fact, clarified that sales made to various retail consumers were inadvertently reflected as sales to the appellant in their filed returns. Despite this explanation and clarification from the alleged supplier, the Assessing Authority proceeded to treat the turnover as suppressed purchase turnover and finalized the assessment on that basis. It was this assessment order that formed the subject matter of the initial writ petition.
