C P Rasheed vs State of Kerala, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice k.vinod chandran & the honourable mr. justice ashok menon friday, the 31st day of january 2020 / 11th magha, 1941 rp.no.1065 of 2019 in ot.rev. 104/2015 against the order/judgment in ot.rev 104/2015 of high court of kerala review petitioner: c p rasheed aged 46 years c.p.r.chicken stall, puthiyangadi, calicut. by advs. sri.s.anil kumar (trivandrum) sri.c.ramachandran sri.m.rajagopal respondent/s: state of kerala, other present: sr.gp sri.c.k.govindan this review petition having come up for admission on 31.01.2020, the court on the same day passed the following:orderdated this the 31st day of january, 2020vinod chandran, j.the above review is filed only on the aspect of denial of input tax credit. in thejudgment under review, finding input tax to be ameasure by which cascading effect of taxation on value addition is avoided, we denied credit insofaras the selling dealer having not paid up their liability. it was noticed, on facts that the suppliers of the review petitioner had notsatisfied their tax obligation. the state having been deprived, to that extent, it was held there was no question of input tax credit.2. the review has been filed on the ground that, subsequently, it has come to the notice of the review petitioner that their suppliers had paid advance tax, at the time of entry into the state, on inter-state transport. the review petitioner seeks credit for that advance tax paid.3. the learned senior government pleader on instructions submits that the suppliers had notpaid the entire tax for the transactions they carried out. the assessment orders as against the suppliers indicate that advance tax paid, comes to only a small proportion of the total sales turnoverindicated by them. in that circumstances, what would be ideal is to decide the proportion of credit available to the subject assessee. thecredit available from the advance tax paid, by a supplier, will be only in the proportion, the sale to the petitioner assessee by that supplier, bears to the total sales effected by that supplying dealer. the above exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, with notice to the assessee.review petition is disposed of on that count with the above directions. no order as to costs. sd/- k. vinod chandran, judge. sd/- ashok menon, judge. jma/ appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: annexure a true copy of the judgment dated 10.8.2018 of this hon'ble court in o.t.rev.no.104 of 2015. annexure b true copy of the letter dated 20.2.2019 of the state public information officer and assistant commissioner, sgst department, kasaragod.

as   the    selling    dealer       having      not    paid     up    their
liability.        It   was    noticed,        on    facts     that     the
suppliers         of   the    review          petitioner        had    not

indicated         by   them.    In   that   circumstances,      what
would be ideal is to decide the proportion                        of
credit     available       to    the     subject    assessee.    The