9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an interdiction or prohibition from filing a revised return in circumstances where a mistake is detected after the period specified. The enabling provision mandates that on a revision of return being attempted to as provided therein, the Assessing Authority is obliged to accept it. At the risk of repetition, it has to be stated that there is no prohibition in attempting a revision of return after the time specified, if no penal proceeding is initiated. Appeal dismissed. - W. A. Nos. 2541 & 2636 of 2017 & 208 And 270 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2018 - MR. K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR. ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellant : Mohammed Rafiq, Sr. Government Pleader For The Respondent : Sri. Harisankar V. Menon JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. Common question arises in the above Writ Appeals from separate judgments of the learned Single Judge allowing revision of returns by the assessees in various contingencies. Beyond the period enabled by the statute; is the ground of appeal. We would first notice the facts in each of the cases and the contingencies under which they sought for revision of returns, which were rejected or not acted upon by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ext.P2 series along with a reconciliation statement at Ext.P2(b), wherein the discrepancies noticed on audit were sought to be incorporated in the return by way of revision. The assessee's application for revision was kept without any action and hence the assessee was before this Court. The Department contended that since the time permitted under the statute for revising return had already expired, there could be no revision effected, especially since limitation as brought in by a statute has to be scrupulously followed and strictly construed. The learned Single Judge found that the assessee on detecting an omission in the returns originally filed had voluntarily come forward to rectify the defects and pay the differential tax as also interest, which necessarily had to be considered favorably by the Department. The learned Single Judge noticed the statutory provisions permitting revision of returns as also the procedure stipulated and specifically looked at Rule 22, which by a proviso inhibited such revision only in instances where penal action has been initiated. An honest dealer who voluntarily comes forward to pay his tax, ought not to be prevented from doing so, was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Single Judge found that the Intelligence Officer had mechanically proceeded to finalise the proposal for penalty without even looking at the order passed by the Assessing Authority in parallel proceedings, especially when the Assessing Authority was also intimated about the report of the Data Mining Team. The challenge against Exhibit P14 was sustained and the same was set aside. The further prayer of the respondent/petitioner for revising the returns was also taken into account by the learned Single Judge and noticing that steps have been initiated under Section 25(1) for re-opening of assessment, the assessee was directed to be given an opportunity to revise the returns in the manner sought for in Exhibit P3 application. 8. The State has challenged the above decisions on the ground that there is a clear prohibition from revising the returns, insofar as the specific time prescribed under the various provisions of the KVAT Act. Reference is made to Sections 21(2), 22(9), 22(10), 42(2) and 79B of the KVAT Act as also Rule 22 (4A) to point out that each of such contingencies wherein revision is permitted, the same has to be done within two months. There can be no further exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the learned Single Judge placing specific emphasis on Section 21 dealing with 'self assessment'. In the VAT regime, Section 21 speaks of self assessment on the filing of a return by the assessee, the completion of which is automatic, subject only to the provisions of Sections 22, 24 and 25. There is a more onerous responsibility cast on the assessee and hence any mistake or defect noticed cannot be merely wished away as an error and the consequences would also be more drastic. It is on the aforesaid contentions that the learned Senior Government Pleader submits that there can be no revision of returns after the time prescribed in the various provisions. 11. The learned Senior Government Pleader also produced before us, across the Bar, a Circular issued by the Commissioner [No.8/2018 dated 21.04.2018] bringing out guidelines for revision of KVAT returns for the back years. The guidelines have been issued on the understanding that under no circumstances the law permits the revision of returns beyond this period (sic), the period being that referred to in various provisions under Sections 21(2), 22(9), 22(10), 42(2) and 79B of the KVAT Act. 12. Under Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted after the period specified. If such a prohibition is inferred, then it will lead to even an honest dealer being inhibited from pointing out a bona fide mistake; thus depriving the State of the tax actually due and keeping himself on tender-hooks as to when and if the Assessing Officer detects such mistake. Again on such detection, there would be necessary penal consequences, which, if the dealer had been given a free play, permitting a voluntary disclosure of the mistake and revision of returns, in which event the dealer would not be visited with penalty. 14. O.T.Rev.No.22 of 2012 specifically dealt with the question as to whether a dealer can file revised return under Section 42(2) of the Act after proceedings have been initiated under Section 25. The Division Bench found that notice under Section 25 would not amount to penal action, but noticed that the revised return under Section 42(2) is only with respect to an omission or mistake in the returns with respect to the audited figures. On facts of the said case, it was found that the Assessing Authority, on verification of the books of accounts with respect to the annual returns, found specific instances of suppression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return. In September, 2015, the assessee applied for revision, which was resisted by the Department on the ground that this would lead to a claim of input tax credit. 17. W.A.No.270 of 2018 has peculiar facts insofar as after initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessment was re-opened and completed without taking into account the alleged offense. The Intelligence Officer proceeded independently and finalised the penalty, on which again a re-opening was attempted, by the Assessing Authority. All this while, an application for revision of return, on the basis of the discrepancies noticed in the Data Mining Report, was pending with the Assessing Authority. The penalty proceedings were only on the basis of the Data Mining Report, which proceedings were initiated after the assessee requested for revision. There is definite lack of coordination between the Officers and we are afraid this results from the anxiety to meet individual targets. We are of the opinion that all these cases bring forth bona fide claims for revision of returns, wherein no penal proceedings were pending at the time when the applications were made; the existence of which alone is the sole prohibition avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
