State of Kerala v Hotel Veeyemmar International (P) Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. V. Bhatti
Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-11-29
Court Decision / Holding: Remand the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for re‑consideration and disposal in accordance with law; merits are to be considered anew by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition: Revision petitions allowed; matter remitted to the Tribunal for re-consideration and disposal by law; merits left open.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala

Respondents

Hotel Veeyemmar International (P) Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.M. Jasmin

Counsels for Respondents

• M. Jayakrishnan
• Bharath Murali

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three Sales Tax Revision Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 2021, heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, challenge orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AGRL I.T.) at Kozhikode and Ernakulam, relating to assessment years 2010–11 and 2011–12 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The State (revision petitioner) contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that Annexure-A orders were time-barred and that the Tribunal relied on an earlier ratio from Hotel Breezeland Ltd., which this Court had reversed in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd. The respondent hotel company opposes the revision, relying on the Tribunal’s findings and annexures, including assessment orders and common orders in T.A. Nos. 45/46 of 2018 and 53/2018. On 29 November 2022, the Court set aside the Tribunal orders, holding that limitation findings require independent re-consideration and that the Hotel Breezeland ratio is not binding due to reversal in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd.; the matters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of governing law, with merits left open for decision by the Tribunal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Remand to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after setting aside lower orders; merits to be decided by the Tribunal in light of controlling authority.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the Tribunal’s finding that Annexure‑A orders are barred by limitation is a finding of fact requiring independent, fresh consideration. Reliance on the ratio from Hotel Breezeland Ltd. is misplaced since the said ratio has been reversed by this Court in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd., necessitating remand for re‑examination and disposal in accordance with law, with merits open for consideration by the Tribunal.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents contend that the Tribunal’s findings on limitation are correct and that the Tribunal’s orders should stand, with annexures and assessment records underpinning the decision. They emphasize that the common orders in T.A. Nos. 45/46 of 2018 and related proceedings were properly reasoned and that the matter should not be prematurely decided but, if necessary, remanded to ensure full compliance with law.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hotel Breezeland Ltd.	2019(2) KLT 432	Overruled	The Tribunal relied on the Hotel Breezeland ratio, which this Court has reversed in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd., hence Hotel Breezeland’s ratio is not to be followed.
Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd.	—	Positive	This case reversed the Hotel Breezeland ratio and is controlling authority cited by the Court for remand and re-consideration.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ST.REV. NO. 13 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.No.45/2018 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,KZD. ``` ## **`- REVISION PETITIONER: Respondent/Respondent/Revenue)`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.M.Jasmin ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/(Appellant/Appellant/Assessee)`** ``` HOTEL VEEYEMMAR INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. SUDEVAN ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD – 678 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.JAYAKRISHNAN BHARATH MURALI FOR ADV.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI B ``` ``` THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, ALONG WITH ST.Rev.14/2021, 15/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -2- # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` ST.REV. NO. 14 OF 2021 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA NO.46/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL`** ``` BENCH,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER(Respondent/Respondent/Revenue)`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M.JASMIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/(Appellant/Appellant/Assessee)`** ``` HOTEL VEEYEMMAR INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. SUDEVAN ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD-678 001 ``` ``` BY ADV BHARAT MURALI FOR ADV.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B ``` ``` THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..13/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -3- # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ST.REV. NO. 15OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA No.53/2018 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER:- (Respondent/Respondent/Revenue)`** ``` THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.M.JASMIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT: (Appellant/Appellant/Assessee)`** ``` HOTEL VEEYEMMAR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD., SUDEVAN ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY ADV RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B ``` ``` THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 29.11.2022, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..13/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -4- ## **S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.** **---------------------------------------------** **S.T.Revision Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2021** **---------------------------------------------** Dated this the 29th day of November 2022 ## **ORDER** ## _S.V.Bhatti, J._ We have heard Smt. M.M. Jasmin, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv.Bharat Murali for Adv.Radhakrishna Pillai for the respondent. 2. State is the revision petitioner. Hotel Veeyemmar International (P) Ltd./a dealer registered under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is the respondent. Identical questions of law and similar circumstances are present for consideration in both revisions, hence are disposed of by this common order. 3. Learned Government Pleader Jasmine invited our attention to the order of the Tribunal. She contended that the Tribunal recorded a finding that the order in Annexure-A is barred by limitation. The finding of fact, whether it is within the time or barred by limitation, S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -5- is a matter to be independently considered, and secondly, the Commissioner and the Tribunal relied on a judgment reversed by this Court in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd.[1] Therefore the matters require re-consideration by the Tribunal. 4. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and the ratio laid down by this Court in _Hotel Breezeland_ case. We are in agreement with the sole argument advanced by the counsel for the State. As the argument is to have the matters remanded after setting aside the order under revisions, we have considered only whether remand is warranted. Hence we set aside the order of the Tribunal. Remit the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration and disposal by the law. Merits are left open for consideration by the Tribunal. S.T. revisions are allowed as above. SD/- **S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE** SD/- **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** css/ 1 2019(2) KLT 432 S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -6- ## **`APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 14/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A ``` ``` Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 31/12/2013 Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN STA NO.7/2014 DATED 24/12/2016 Annexure cA TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN T.A NO.45 AND 46 OF 2018 DATED 16/12/2020 ``` S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -7- ## **`APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 15/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 31.12.2013. Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN T.A. NO. 45 AND 46 OF 2018 DATED 16.12.2020. ``` ``` Annexure C ``` ``` Annexure D ``` ``` Annexure E ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 02.01.2014. ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN STA NO. 8/2014 DATED 24.12.2016. ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN T.A. NO. 53 OF 2018 DATED 16.12.2020. ``` S.T.Rev.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 -8- ## **`APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 13/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AA TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 31.12.2013. Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN STA NO.6/2014 DATED 24.12.2016. Annexure CA TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN T.A.NO.45 AND 46 OF 2018 DATED 16.12.2020. ```