Case Law Details
Sub section (2) of Section 42 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 requires the dealer to file a revised annual return, rectifying the mistake or omission along with the audit certificate; none of which has been done by the petitioner. The e-mail said to have been sent by the petitioner to the Commercial Tax Officer, is not a proper mode of applying for revision, as statutorily prescribed.
Relevant Extract of the Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P1 order of assessment passed against the petitioner and the estimation made in the said order. The petitioner’s contention is based on Ext.P4, an e-mail communication said to have been sent to the Assessing Officer on 29.08.2013.
2. Admittedly, there were certain defects noticed by the Assessing Officer in the return filed by the petitioner and a proposal for re-opening was issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘Act’ for short) dated 27.10.2016, produced as Ext.P2. The assessment was completed as per Ext.P1.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
