High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-02-02Writ petition disposed of; order to proceed wit...

Impressario Event Management India Ltd v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3693 of 2017 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-02-02
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of without any observations on merits. The original authority is directed to consider all contentions and objections raised by the petitioner; if the petitioner wishes, file additional documents within two weeks and appear before the officer who issued the notices by 23.02.2017. The officer shall then set a date for hearing within two weeks and pass a reasoned order addressing the objections and arguments. The petition leaves open the relief regarding the declaratory prayer; penalty orders for certain years may be considered for limitation by the issuing officer.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; order to proceed with objections and hearing by original authority; merits not adjudicated at this stage; declaratory relief left open; penalties to be considered for limitation by issuing officer; two-week window for filing documents and hearing date to be fixed within two weeks of objections.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Impressario Event Management India Ltd

Respondents

State of Kerala
Union of India
The Intelligence Officer (IB) Department of Commercial Taxes, Edappally, Ernakulam
Superintendent of Central Excise Service Tax Range, Central Excise Bhavan, Katrikadavu, Cochin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A. Kumar
• Smt. Mini

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri V. K. Shamsudheen, Government Pleader
• Sri N. Nagareesh, ASG
• Sreelal N. Warrier, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges notices for penalty under Section 67 issued for the periods 2006-07 to 2013-14 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The petitioner, an Event Management Organization, contends it is not a registered dealer under KVAT since it does not engage in sale of goods or transfer of the right to use, and that it provides services by organizing events and supplying equipment temporarily from various suppliers. It argues the consideration received is taxed under the Finance Act, 1994 as services, and there is no sale of goods or deemed sale. To buttress its case, it relies on Supreme Court judgments Imagic Creative (P) Ltd v CCT and Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v Larsen and Toubro Ltd. The court notes prima facie viability of the petitioner’s contentions but declines to adjudicate on merits at the notice stage, directing the original authority to consider all contentions and objections. The petitioner is granted two weeks to file additional documents and appear before the issuing officer by 23.02.2017 for a hearing, after which a reasoned order must be passed. The writ petition is disposed of without observations on merits, with relief on declaratory prayer left open and penalties potentially subject to limitation to be considered by the officer.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 67Entry 54 of List II of Schedule 7Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of IndiaFinance Act, 1994 - Section 65Finance Act, 1994 - Section 105(zu)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues it is an Event Management Organization providing services for organizing events and enabling equipment supply from various suppliers. There is no sale of goods or transfer of right to use, and the services are taxed under the Finance Act, 1994 rather than KVAT. The petition relies on Imagic Creative (P) Ltd and Larsen & Toubro to contend that event-management services should be treated as service and not as sale or deemed sale under KVAT. It seeks a declaratory declaration and relief against penalties, emphasizing the notice-stage nature of the challenge.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend penalties under KVAT are enforceable if the respondent is liable for tax; the petition is not a registered dealer; but the court declines to decide merits at the notice stage and emphasizes that the original authority must consider objections, with hearings and a reasoned order. They argue for upholding the notices and penalties until the proper factual and legal analysis is completed by the assessing officer.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Imagic Creative (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others	2008(2) SCC 614	Mentioned Only	Cited to support petitioners' arguments but the judgment does not adopt or apply its ratio at this stage; it is referenced to bolster the petitioner's contentions.
Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.	2016(1) SCC 170	Mentioned Only	Cited to buttress the petitioners' arguments; the present decision does not apply its ratio, and it remains at the notice stage.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Impressario Event Management India Ltd v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 3693 of 2017 (J)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------** ## **IMPRESSARIO EVENT MANAGEMENT INDIA LTD** **2ND FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR, OPP.INDIRA GANDHI HOSPITAL, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHIN-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE-ACCOUNTS SIBY JOHN** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** **2. UNION OF INDIA** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001** **3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682024** **4. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX RANGE, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATRIKADAVU, COCHIN-682017** **R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG R4 BY SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 3693 of 2017 (J) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**APPENDIX**|**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**|| |**-----------------------**|| |**P1:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE TAX REGISTRATION**| ||**CERTIFICATE DATED 12/9/2006**| |**P2:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE TAX RETURN FOR THE PERIOD**| ||**2012-13 (RELEVANT PAGES)**| |**P3:**|**TRUE COPY OF LEDGER OF COST CENTERS IN RELATION TO**| ||**WORK ORDERS OF CREDAI AND LAKESHORE**| |**P4:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LEGER ACCOUNT IN RELATION TO AN**| ||**EVENT CREDAI AND ALSO THE INVOICE RAISED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER ON CREDAI**| |**P5:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LEGER ACCOUNT IN RELATION TO AN**| ||**EVENT LAKESHORE AND ALSO THE INVOICE RAISED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER ON LAKESHORE**| |**P6:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/11/2015**| |**P7:**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 27/5/2015**| |**P7A:**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 5/1/2016**| |**P8:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07**| |**P8(A):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08**| |**P8(B):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09**| |**P8(C):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10**| |**P8(D):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11**| |**P8(E):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12**| |**P8(F):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13**| |**P8(G):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/5/2016 FOR THE**| ||**ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14**| **..3..** **..3..** **WP(C).No. 3693 of 2017 (J)** **P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR F.NO.B11/1/2002-TRU DATED 1/8/2002 P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CBEC CIRCULAR DATED 28/11/2003 P10(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CBEC CIRCULAR DATED 23/8/2007** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 3693 of 2017 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 02[nd] day of February, 2017 ## J U D G M E N T Essentially what is challenged in the above writ petition is the notices for penalty, under Section 67, for the periods 2006-07 to 2013-14. The petitioner admittedly is not a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short “KVAT Act” only), since the petitioner does not have any sale of goods; coming under Entry 54 of List II of Schedule 7 or as contemplated by Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contends that the petitioner is an Event Management Organization and is only engaged in providing service to the individuals or bodies, who engage them for organizing events. There could also be no transfer of right to use involved in the WPC.No.3693/2017 : 2 : organization of such events. 2. It is also specifically contended that the petitioners do not rent out any goods and only organizes the events by enabling equipments from the various suppliers, like the audio visual equipments, for use in the actual event which is organized. There is no sale of goods or transfer of right to use; is the specific contention of the petitioner. The petitioner has also a contention that the entire consideration paid to the petitioners is taxed under the Finance Act, 1994 as a service and there could be no sale of goods or deemed sale, which could be ferreted, out on any aspect of the organization of the event, entrusted to the petitioners which is an indivisible service. 3. The petitioner also relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Imagic Creative WPC.No.3693/2017 : 3 : (P) Ltd, v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others [2008(2) SCC 614] and Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. [2016(1) SCC 170] to further buttress their contentions in the writ petition which also seek for a declaration that the event management service being a taxable service under section 65, 105 (zu) of the Finance Act, 1994 would not be exigible to tax under the KVAT Act, as a sale or a deemed sale. 4. Prima facie the petitioner has a very valid contention against the notice for penalty. However, this Court would not venture to adjudicate on the issue since it is only at the notice stage. This Court would not pre-empt the original authority and it is only proper that the original authority consider all the contentions raised by WPC.No.3693/2017 : 4 : the petitioners. Petitioners have already filed objections and sought for a date for hearing. In such circumstances if the petitioner has to file any further documents or additional objections, the petitioner shall be granted 2 weeks time and the petitioner shall appear before the Officer who issued the notices on or before 23.02.2017 with objections and documents. The Officer shall then give a date of hearing within two weeks, with personal acknowledgment taken from the person who appears before the Officer on that day. The Officer shall consider the entire issues; specifically what has been briefly dealt with by this Court in the above paragraphs and pass a reasoned order meeting the objections of the petitioner or accepting the same. Writ petition is disposed of without any WPC.No.3693/2017 : 5 : observations on merits and leaving open the relief insofar as the declaratory prayer made by the petitioner. The petitioner also claims that the penalty orders for certain years are hit by limitation, which also would be considered by the Officer who has issued the notices. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge