2014 (10) TMI 198 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Transfer of liability - The petitioner s contention is that the business was transferred in the name of the 4th respondent, who is his daughter, at the time of her marriage. Thereafter the business was conducted by the 4th respondent and her husband; hence the petitioner has no liability - Held that - The State has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that an amount of ₹ 55,190/- and collection charges of ₹ 2,822/- were with respect to a demand raised in another revenue recovery proceedings, numbered as RRC 98/2000-01, of the assessment year 1993-94. The present recovery is stated to be on the assessment for the years 1987-88, 1994-95 and the penalty imposed for the year 1993-94. The petitioner also does not have a case that prior to the years in which the assessment has been completed and penalty imposed; the petitioner had complied with the statutory formalities for transfer of registration in the name of his daughter. Exhibit P1, which is said to be a settlement made in the name of the 4th respondent, is of no consequence with respect to the liability under the KGST Act. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of business liability under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
2. Validity of revenue recovery notices for outstanding amounts.
3. Liability of the petitioner for tax demands and penalties.
4. Compliance with statutory formalities for transfer of registration.

Transfer of Business Liability:
The petitioner claimed that the business was transferred to his daughter at the time of her marriage and that she and her husband were conducting the business. The petitioner argued that a previous revenue recovery notice was satisfied through instalments, and the attachment was lifted. However, the State contended that the current recovery proceedings were for different demands not covered by the previous settlement. The court found that the petitioner failed to show compliance with statutory formalities for the transfer of registration to his daughter, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition against the petitioner.

Validity of Revenue Recovery Notices:
The State issued revenue recovery notices for outstanding amounts totaling Rs. 1,02,127, including demands from assessments in 1987-88, 1994-95, and a penalty from 1993-94. The petitioner argued that the amounts paid under previous recovery notices were not credited in the current proceedings. The court noted the specific demands in the current notices and directed the petitioner to settle the outstanding dues in ten equal monthly instalments if approached within a month, with further interest to be applied post-settlement.

Liability for Tax Demands and Penalties:
The 4th respondent, the petitioner's daughter, admitted taking over the business in 1997 but claimed that the liability for earlier years remained with the petitioner. The State clarified the specific demands and collection charges related to different assessment years and recovery proceedings. The court held that without proper transfer of registration and compliance with formalities, the petitioner remained liable for the tax demands and penalties as per the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.

Compliance with Statutory Formalities:
The court emphasized that the petitioner did not demonstrate compliance with the necessary statutory formalities for transferring the business registration to his daughter before the assessments and penalties were imposed. The court highlighted that a settlement made in the daughter's name was irrelevant to the liability under the KGST Act. As a result, the petitioner's contentions were dismissed, and the case against the daughter was left open for further consideration.