2018 (3) TMI 680 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of returns - willful omission or suppression with an intent to evade tax or not? - Held that - the petitioner, on detecting an omission in the returns originally filed by it, came forward to rectify the defects, by expressing his readiness to pay the differential tax and interest in respect of the transactions that were omitted in the return that was originally filed. Since the petitioner voluntarily came forward to rectify the omissions and pay the differential tax, and the action of the petitioner is not pursuant to the detection of any suppression by the Department, the mere apprehension that, on the petitioner being permitted to pay the differential tax, he might lay claim to the input tax credit of tax paid on purchases that were not reported, cannot, in my view, be a ground to deny the petitioner the opportunity to come forward and rectify an anomaly in the returns, so as to ensure a compliance with the statutory provisions. The petitioner in this case having established that he had approached the respondents, for correcting omissions in the returns filed by him for the assessment year 2011-12, before any proceedings were initiated against him for differential tax demands or for the imposition of any penalty for breach of any statutory provision, ought to be permitted to revise his returns to include the omissions noticed - petition allowed.

Issues:
Interpretation of procedural provisions in a taxing statute in a developing economy.
Permission to revise annual returns under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.
Strict construction of limitation provisions under the Statute for revising returns.
Grant of input tax credit and concessions under the Taxing Statute.
Allowance for revising returns and paying differential tax voluntarily.
Interpretation of statutory provisions for revising returns and claiming input tax credit.
Benefit of input tax credit and liberal construction of limitation provisions.
Permission to revise returns for correcting omissions without penalty or differential tax demands.

Interpretation of Procedural Provisions in a Taxing Statute:
The judgment begins with observations on interpreting procedural provisions in a taxing statute in a developing economy. It emphasizes the need for a strict interpretation while considering the impact on taxpayers and the trading community. The judgment highlights the importance of not mechanically applying procedural provisions without understanding their purpose, urging tax authorities to be more accommodating to rectify technical omissions for tax compliance.

Permission to Revise Annual Returns under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act:
The petitioner, engaged in trade under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, sought permission to revise annual returns for the year 2011-2012 due to detected omissions in the original filing. Despite the petitioner's readiness to rectify mistakes and pay differential tax, the respondents did not grant permission, citing the expiration of the time limit for revising returns as per the Statute.

Strict Construction of Limitation Provisions for Revising Returns:
The respondents argued for a strict construction of limitation provisions, contending that allowing a belated revision leading to altered turnover and tax liability is impermissible. They relied on legal precedents emphasizing strict interpretation of concessions under a Taxing Statute, especially when there is a suppression of facts by the dealer.

Grant of Input Tax Credit and Concessions under the Taxing Statute:
The judgment discusses the purpose of input tax credit in removing the cascading effect of tax on tax, benefiting consumers. It stresses that when a dealer complies with statutory provisions and pays tax properly, the concession of input tax credit matures into a right for the dealer. The judgment advocates for a liberal construction of limitation provisions to enable dealers to claim entitled benefits under the Statute.

Allowance for Revising Returns and Paying Differential Tax Voluntarily:
The petitioner's voluntary initiative to rectify omissions in the returns without any Departmental detection of suppression is highlighted. The judgment emphasizes rewarding honest dealers who come forward to rectify mistakes by allowing them to revise returns, pay differential tax and interest, and claim concessions like input tax credit based on compliance with statutory provisions.

Permission to Revise Returns for Correcting Omissions without Penalty or Differential Tax Demands:
Ultimately, the judgment allows the writ petition, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise the returns for the assessment year 2011-12. The judgment emphasizes that if the petitioner is found liable for any differential tax, they must comply with statutory provisions and pay the differential tax, interest, and penal interest simultaneously with the revision of returns.

← Previous Next →