Kerala High Court Allows Dealer To Correct Copy Of Stock Inventory Uploaded Along With Returns

The Kerala High Court has allowed the dealer to correct a copy of stock inventory uploaded along with returns.

The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the mistake on the part of the petitioner-dealer was that she uploaded the stock inventory as of May 28, 2015, instead of the stock inventory as of March 31, 2015. The provisions of sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 should be interpreted as permitting the dealer to also revise or correct any mistake in the documents uploaded along with returns under Rule 22 (1), as any other interpretation would mean that while the dealer is permitted to revise his return on detecting a mistake, he cannot correct a mistake in any of the documents uploaded along with the returns.

The bench directed the department to permit the petitioner to correct the copy of stock inventory (closing stock) as of March 31, 2015, which was filed along with the annual returns submitted by the petitioner for the years 2014–15.

The petitioner/assessee is a registered dealer engaged in the business of marbles, granite, vitrified tiles, ceramic tiles, wall tiles, etc. The assessee, while uploading the annual returns for the year 2014–15, uploaded the statement of closing stock as of May 28, 2015, instead of the closing stock as of March 31, 2015.

On noticing the mistake, the petitioner filed an intimation before the assessing authority and requested permission to correct the mistake. However, the petitioner was served with the notices. The notices are issued after the petitioner intimated the mistake committed while uploading the statement of closing stock filed in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 22(3)(v) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The department noted that there is no provision to enable the filing of a revised copy of stock inventory as of March 31, 2015.

The department contended that though there is provision for correction of returns in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 22 of the 2005 Rules, the Rule does not appear to cover documents required to be uploaded along with the returns in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22. It is submitted that it is for the petitioner to suitably respond to the notices, which were finalized by the respondent department in accordance with the law.

The court, while allowing the petition, held that the petitioner is entitled to an order permitting him to file or upload a revised stock statement as of March 31, 2015. Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 of the 2005 Rules contemplates the filing of a revised return where the dealer detects any omission or mistake in the return submitted by him under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22.

Counsel For Petitioner: R.Muraleedharan

Counsel For Respondent: Thushara James

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 368

Case Title: Usha Bagri Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Case No.: WP(C) NO. 34004 OF 2015

Click Here To Read The Order