9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-assessment notice mainly proposing to fix turnover on the basis of the figures as seen from the profit and loss account. There are proposals to disallow the exemption claimed by the petitioner under Rule 10 as also disallow a minor portion of input tax credit. The petitioner filed replies at Exts.P2 & P4 pointing out that the figures as per the financial statements also include the transactions outside Kerala, value of land etc. which are outside the purview of taxation under the VAT Act. However, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P-5 order by taking the value as per the financial statements for Kerala as the basis for assessment. A portion of input tax credit and the expenses were also disallowed for reasons not stated anywhere in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anywhere in the previous assessment notice. That the said decision making process, whereby the actual grounds of rejection in the impugned order are not even notified to the assessee as grounds in the previous assessment notice, would eminently qualify rectification proceedings in terms of Sec.66 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Further, crucially the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that a mere reading of Ext.P-6 application as well as a reading of the appendix of Ext.P-6 would make it clear that the 1st respondent has indeed taken into account even components of land tax, corpus fund and electrical and water charges for reckoning the value added tax, which according to the petitioner is totally beyond the taxation powers of the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order. Further that, going by the data and facts and figures now projected in Ext.P-6 application for rectification would indicate that the petitioner has made out a very strong case that even parametres like land cost, corpus fund, electrical and water charges, etc. has already been reckoned by the 1st respondent, while determining the issue of value added tax, as per the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order. Such an aspect would certainly termed as "wednesbury unreasonableness" in the decision making process, which led to the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order. Since that is the specific case of the petitioner, it is only to be held that the plea for rectification made by the petitioner as per Ext.P-6 would requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
