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.
3. The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner had detected the defects noticed by the Assessing Officer when audit was conducted of the accounts of the petitioner. It was in that context that the petitioner sent an e-mail, as per Ext.P4, for revision of return, which is said to be dated 29.08.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pursue the application for revision and waited till three years, when a proposal for re-opening was issued under Section 25(1) of the Act dated 27.10.2016. A reply was filed at Ext.P3, in which a contention was taken with respect to the e-mail sent on 29.08.2013.
4. Rightly, the Assessing Officer refused to reckon the application filed through e-mail, as one properly filed under sub section (2) of Section 42 of the Act. Sub section (2) of Section 42 of the Act 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. The dealer also has certain contentions against the defects noticed, which, however, would not be possible of consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dealer would have to definitely approach the appellate authority for a proper challenge to Ext.P1.
5. In the circumstances noticed above, this Court declines jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, if approaching the appellate authority, the delay caused between 17.01.2017, the date on which the writ petition was filed, and today would not be reckoned.
