2020 (8) TMI 290 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of Luxury Tax - houseboat at Kottayam taken on lease and is registered - time limitation - tax had been paid for the houseboat at Kottayam - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that permission to pay tax as per Exhibit P2 was issued on 1.6.2011 and Exhibit P1 lease agreement is dated 6.6.2011. Since a doubt had arisen as to whether the houseboat registered in the name of the petitioner's husband at Kottayam and the houseboat of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of proceedings under Exhibit P3 are different, the learned counsel for the petitioner was required to produce evidence that the very same houseboat was registered at Kottayam - the contention is liable to be rejected, since Exhibit P1 can only be a self serving document, created with the intention of misleading the authorities and this Court. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - As rightly contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the bar of limitation would apply only if the petitioner is an assessee registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Having clandestinely operated the houseboat without registration to avoid payment of tax, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the tax liability by raising the plea of limitation. The conduct of the petitioner in having attempted to mislead this Court on the strength of Exhibit P1 agreement is deprecated in the strongest terms. The petitioner is absolved from payment of cost only because of the forthright submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against luxury tax assessment for a houseboat for a specific year.
Validity of lease agreement and tax payment at a different location.
Bar of limitation for assessment under Section 6(2) of the Act.
Requirement of boat registration and tax payment for tax liability.
Petitioner's attempt to mislead the court with documents.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the owner of a houseboat, challenged an order (Exhibit P3) by the State Tax Officer imposing luxury tax liability for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner claimed to have leased the boat to her husband under Exhibit P1 agreement, who had paid tax at Kottayam. The petitioner argued that the assessment under Section 6(2) issued in 2018 was time-barred. However, the court noted that the bar of limitation does not apply if the boat is unregistered and returns are not filed, as in the petitioner's case.

Regarding the tax payment at Kottayam, the court observed that the permission to pay tax was granted before the lease agreement was executed. The petitioner failed to prove that the boat registered at Kottayam and the one in question were the same. The court deemed Exhibit P1 as a self-serving document aimed at misleading the authorities, rejecting the petitioner's contention based on it.

The court also dismissed the argument of limitation, stating that it applies only to registered assesses. Since the petitioner operated the houseboat without registration to evade tax, the plea of limitation was not accepted. The judgment emphasized that attempting to mislead the court with Exhibit P1 was condemned. The petitioner was spared from costs due to the honest submissions of her counsel.

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the tax liability for the houseboat. The judgment highlighted the importance of boat registration, tax payment, and truthful representation in legal proceedings, while penalizing attempts to deceive the court with misleading documents.