Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Crescent Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (WC) (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C) NO. 34555 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/11/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Crescent Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (WC) (Kerala High Court)

HC held that that Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has misdirected himself in law while deciding to reject the application for rectification on the ground that the petitioner produced the documents in support of the claim for lower rate of tax only along with the application for rectification. As is evident from provisions of Section 66 of the KVAT Act, disputes such as these are matters which can be considered in a rectification application and once it is brought to the notice of the Officer that there is a mistake in applying the correct rate of tax, it was within the power conferred on the Officer under Section 66 to rectify such mistake. As already noticed the Officer had rejected the application for rectification only on the ground that the documents in support of a lower rate of tax were produced only along with the application for rectification.

The rectification application filed by the petitioner is restored to the file of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax shall reconsider the matter and take a decision on the application for rectification in the light of the observations made above.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for rectification by Ext.P5 order. It is the case of the petitioner that goods which were taxable at the rate of 5% were imposed with the tax at the rate of 13.5% by completing the assessment as per Ext.P3 order, prompting the petitioner to file an application for rectification along with c-forms and invoices which according to the petitioner show that the goods in question could have been taxed only at 5%. Perusal of Ext.P5 suggests that the Officer has rejected the petition for rectification on the ground that the petitioner has produced the documents which showed that the goods were taxable only at the rate of 5%, along with the rectification petition and not at the time of assessment.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031