9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 985 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - whether the product dealt with by the dealers, would fall under a particular entry of the KVAT Act, chargeable at rate that applies in terms of that entry - Held that - Court may record for the sake of convenience that the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the dealers pointed out the entry at serial No. 2 in the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act, vis-a-vis, the entries at Tariff item 0802 90 in Chapter 8 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Reference was also made on behalf of the dealers to the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of India in Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupathi 2007 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Gundur v. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works 2009 (6) TMI 530 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . Now, we also record the submission made on behalf of the learned Government Pleader that the Central excise tariff has escaped the notice of the authority, though such provisions as they now stand were brought in after the Supreme Court had rendered the decision in Crane Betel Nut 2007 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . We do not express anything in either way on any matter touching the merit of the rival contentions, having regard to the nature of the conclusions arrived at on the question of hearing. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to an order of clarification under section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Analysis: The judgment by Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan J. and Babu Mathew P. Joseph J. dealt with a writ petition and appeals against an order of clarification issued under section 94 of the KVAT Act. The court considered the authority's duty to discharge statutory obligations and the need for proper hearings in such matters. The court highlighted the importance of due process, especially in cases where the nature of a product and its tax implications are in question. The judgment emphasized the significance of fair hearings and the authority's responsibility to consider all relevant aspects before issuing clarifications under the KVAT Act. The court reviewed the history of the case, noting previous orders and the involvement of the Commissioner in determining the tax rate applicable to the product in question. The judgment highlighted the procedural irregularities in the Commissioner's actions, particularly regarding the constitution of a Three Member Committee to decide on clarifications post-amendment in 2009. The court found that the hearings conducted by the Commissioner were inadequate and did not afford the dealers proper opportunities to present their case effectively. The judgment underscored the necessity for thorough and fair hearings in matters of taxation to ensure justice and compliance with statutory provisions. Regarding the legal arguments presented, the court acknowledged references to relevant judgments and provisions, including the Central Excise Tariff Act and Supreme Court decisions. The judgment refrained from expressing opinions on the merits of these arguments, focusing instead on the procedural deficiencies in the hearing process. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order of clarification and directed the competent authority under section 94 of the KVAT Act to reevaluate the issue after conducting proper hearings and considering all necessary aspects. The judgment emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of the matter and directed the parties to appear before the competent authority for further proceedings within a specified timeframe. In conclusion, the judgment in this case highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, proper hearings, and compliance with statutory provisions in matters of taxation. By setting aside the impugned order and directing a reevaluation with due process, the court ensured that the parties involved would have a fair opportunity to present their case and that the authority would make a well-informed decision based on all relevant factors.
|
