GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is the order assessing the petitioner to tax under the KGST Act for the assessment year 1999 - 2000. The further relief sought is to direct the second respondent to give credit to the remitted amount of '.30 lakhs along with interest as provided under Section 44 of the Act. A further direction is sought not to proceed further with the recovery under Ext.P7 without giving credit for '.30 lakhs. Yet another direction is sought in terms of challenge to Ext.P7.

(2.) Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Ext.P8 is the assessment for the assessment year 1990 -91. Therein, a sum of '.6 lakhs and odd was directed to be paid. According to petitioner, the amount was paid. Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner has remitted a sum of '.15 lakhs on the basis of the direction of this Court in OP.No.9310/94. Petitioner has also paid another sum of '.15 lakhs. Thus, a total sum of '.30 lakhs has been paid. According to petitioner, it was not adjusted to tax. Ext.P7, as already noted, is the assessment for the year 1999 -2000. Earlier, in respect of the year 1999 -2000, against the order, petitioner had preferred Appeal and Ext.P3 resulted. Therein, the petitioner pressed the contention that the petitioner had remitted '.15 lakhs and reference is made to the acknowledgment issued by the Special Tahsildar dated 03.8.1990. It is further noted that the petitioner has also remitted advance tax of '.15 lakhs on 26.3.1990. It was further stated that credit has not been given for the above amounts in the assessment order issued. It is also stated that the appellant has produced proof of payment of the tax referred above. Thereafter, the appellant was directed to produce evidence/proof before the assessing authority within fifteen days and the assessing authority was directed to give credit for the above payments by modifying the order. It is as a consequential order that Ext.P7 came to be passed. In Ext.P7, the assessing officer finds that the claim of the petitioner based on remittance of '.30 lakhs in all, is without basis. The assessing officer found as follows: "The following facts are emerged from the above proceedings: The dealer remitted Rs.15,00,000/= before the Special Tahsildar, Kanayannoor on 07.08.1994 against the RR proceedings initiated for the year 1990 -91. The dealer's request is to give credit of the above amount towards tax dues for 1999 -00. The dealer has remitted Rs.15,00,000/= by DD on 26.03.1990 for the year 1989 -90 by way of advance tax. The dealer's request is to give credit of the above amount towards the dues for 1999 -00. The appellate authority's specific direction is that the dealer shall produce the evidences before the assessing authority within the time limit allowed, i.e. 15 days of receipt of the appellate order. The proof to be produced is that the above payments were eligible for crediting to the year 1999 -00. In the above referred objections, affidavit and indemnity bond, the dealer submitted that they have actually made the payment during different years, i.e. 1989 -90 and 1990 -91. The above payments are in discharge of the demands arose for the above years. The assessee have miserably failed to produce the proof as directed by the appellate authority. In the circumstances, the objections are overruled and the proposal is given effect as follows: Total turnover fixed as per order dtd: 15.05.06 Rs.39,96,77,786.06 Less: exemption allowed " dtd.15.05.06 Rs. 6,27,26,243.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Taxable turnover fixed " dtd.15.05.06 Rs.33,69,51,542.86 Rounded to Rs.33,69,51,550.00

(3.) According to the appellant, the payment of '.15 lakhs as evidenced by Ext.P2 made for the year 1990 -91, is not reflected in Ext.P8 assessment order for the year 1990 -91. In other words, it is submitted that the assessment order would show that the payment which was effected prior to the date of Ext.P8 assessment order for the year 1990 -91 was not reckoned. According to the appellant, the appellant has paid the amount of '.6 lakhs and odd demanded as per Ext.P8 for the year 1990 -91. If that is so, the case of the appellant is that what happened to the payment made towards the assessment year 1990 -91 vide Ext.P2. According to the appellant, the amounts have not been adjusted towards any year and, therefore, the appellant contends that this Court may interfere.