High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Itel Industries Ltd vs The State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
M/S.Itel Industries Ltd vs The State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 8 of 2011()


1. M/S.ITEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
            ----------------------------------
                   S.T.Rev. Nos.8 & 9 of 2011
             ---------------------------------
            Dated, this the 28th day of January, 2011

                         J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

These Revision cases are filed against the orders of the

Tribunal modifying the KGST and CST assessments on the petitioner

Company for 1999-2000.

2. We have heard learned Senior counsel

Dr.K.B.Mohammedkutty appearing for the revision petitioner and

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is a Tata Group Company, which was

taken over by a Company by name M/s.Itel Industries Ltd., which is

carrying on business in manufacture and sale of telephone

equipments and instruments. The transfer of management was with

effect from 01/06/2001 and the assessment pertains to the year

1999-2000. On going through the impugned orders, we find that

returns filed were rejected and turnover estimated, for the reason

that books of accounts produced were not full and complete. It is

S.T.Rev.Nos.8 & 9 of 2011
-2-

seen that the first appellate authority gave an opportunity to the

assessee to produce books of accounts before the Assessing Officer

for him to file a report. However, the Company could not produce

all the books of accounts and therefore, the Assessing Officer

suggested only estimation of turnover. The appellate authority

made additions at 5%, which was modified by the Tribunal with

lump sum additions both under sales and purchase turnover. It is

against this order of the Tribunal, these revision cases are filed.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out the

nature of additions, which according to him, is arbitrary and without

any basis. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand, referred

to the findings in the orders wherein it is clearly stated that the

petitioner could not produce the books of accounts before the

Assessing Officer to verify the same and make assessment based on

book figures. Even though accounts are not full and complete, we

do not think there is any justification for making wild additions.

This is a case where the Company went into bad days and was in

fact a BIFR company for some time. It remained closed for

sometime and the fact that the Management had to sell the business

clearly shows that there was only decline in business. Therefore,

assessments have to be made on a rationale basis, even if some of

S.T.Rev.Nos.8 & 9 of 2011
-3-

books are missing in the course of transmission of management or

during closure of business. Learned Senior counsel for the

petitioner specifically pointed out that without establishing local

purchases, addition is made for assessment under Section 5A

treating 80% of the sales turnover as local purchases. We find force

in the contention because none of the authorities have bothered to

find out the turnover for which C-Forms are issued, which would

have indicated the percentage of sourcing of raw materials from

outside Kerala. If raw materials are not locally purchased, then

there is no justification for making any assessment under Section

5A. Similarly since most of the sales are interstate, the Bank

accounts should have disclosed the turnover because sales are

normally not made against cash. In any case, learned counsel for

the petitioner has pointed out that the Tribunal has partly remanded

the matter involving production of accounts once again before the

Assessing Officer. According to him, the petitioner will be able to

produce the accounts, which will disclose purchase and sales

turnover. We feel along with the books of accounts, the petitioner

should produce Bank pass books also before the Assessing Officer

for him to make assessment based on books of accounts, and if

required to make rationale estimation of turnover based on

S.T.Rev.Nos.8 & 9 of 2011
-4-

materials. So far as Section 5A assessment is concerned, we direct

the Officer to examine the pattern of sourcing of raw materials and

the percentage of turnover for which purchases are made within and

outside Kerala, or whether any sourcing is done through imports,

and then to make assessment under Section 5A on the actual

purchases or based on reasonable estimation.

These revision cases are, accordingly, allowed by vacating the

orders of the Tribunal and that of the lower authorities and by

remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. There will be a

direction to the petitioner to produce the entire books of accounts

and details before the Assessing Officer after getting a date fixed by

him to enable the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment

within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. However, if books produced are not full and complete,

assessment should be made on estimation basis based on materials

and after issuing pre-assessment notice containing proposals.

These Revision Cases are allowed as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE)
jg