9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 247 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRegistration of dealer - KVAT - casual dealer in Chicken - The petitioner s claim is that he is having business only to a turnover of less than ₹ 10 lakhs and he is not required to take registration - Held that - Section 6 of the KVAT Act states that in the case of an importer or casual trader the turnover limit of ₹ 10 lakhs is not applicable. The petitioner, in any event, had to take out registration - revision dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to penalty order for tax evasion based on suppressed turnover; Claim of being a casual dealer without registration; Dispute over estimated turnover and tax liability; Revisional authority's modifications in turnover calculation; Commissioner's rejection of second revision; Interpretation of turnover limit under Kerala Value Added Tax Act; Question of law arising from Commissioner's order; Stay on property sale pending payment settlement. Analysis: The petitioner, a casual dealer in chicken without registration, contested a penalty order (Annexure A5) based on a Shop Inspection Report (SIR) revealing a suppressed turnover of ?12,96,000. The Intelligence Officer (I.O.) imposed a penalty of ?3,75,840, rejecting the petitioner's claims of low turnover and high mortality rate. The first revisional authority modified the turnover calculation, reducing the estimated weight and price per kilogram, but the I.O. issued fresh orders (Annexure A3) based on this modification. The Commissioner upheld the penalty and modifications, leading to the petitioner's second revision being dismissed (Annexure A5). The petitioner argued that even with the modified turnover, it remained below the limit set by Section 6(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, suggesting a lower total turnover. However, the court observed that the substantial number of chickens and business activities indicated continuous operations, potentially leading to higher turnovers in subsequent periods. The Government Pleader highlighted the petitioner's importation activities, emphasizing the obligation to register regardless of turnover limits for importers or casual traders. Ultimately, the court found no legal issue in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the revision. Regarding the petitioner's property sale, a stay was granted for three months to settle the liability with the Revenue Recovery authority. Failure to pay within the specified period would result in the resumption of recovery proceedings.
|
