Gopinathan Nair C vs State Of Kerala

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This OT. Revision pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this O.T. Revision is that the petitioner, stated to be a sub-contractor, who was engaged for doing painting works for the main contractor M/s Heera Constructions Private Limited, had furnished Form 20H under the Kerala Value Added Tax (for short 'KVAT') Act and Rules, undertaking to pay tax on the turnover involved for carrying out the sub-contracted works for the main contractor. Based on the declaration submitted by the petitioner, the main contractor would have obtained a deduction of a proportionate amount of taxable turnover for the purposes of his assessment under the KVAT Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein did not pay the tax amount covered by the Form 20H declaration and accordingly, the Revenue proceeded against the petitioner for recovery of the said amounts.

Although the petitioner contended before the authorities below that the principal contractor had deducted the tax due from amounts paid to him for the works done by him, there was no proof adduced to demonstrate any such deduction. His alternative contention that the Form 20H certificates issued by him were not relied upon by the Assessing Authority while assessing the turnover of the main contractor was also not evidenced by any document filed before the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority. His contentions were therefore rejected not only by the original authority, but also by the 1st Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. It is against the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner has approached this Court through this O.T. Revision.

We have heard Sri. Sivankutty S., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, we find that, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that, the petitioner sub-contractor did not pay the tax that he had undertaken to pay through the certificates in Form 20H of the KVAT Act and Rules, the authorities below cannot be faulted for confirming the demand raised against him for the tax amounts covered by the said certificates issued by him. We see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. This O.T. Revision is therefore disposed by answering the questions of law raised therein, against the petitioner/assessee and in favour of the Revenue.