Page 63 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] HINDUSTAN COCA COLA PVT. LTD. v. ASSTT. STATE TAX OFFICER 549
the goods (a) on its paying the applicable tax and penalty equal to one
hundred per cent of the tax payable on the goods. If the goods belong
to an exempted category, a different rate applies, though.
27. The Revenue asserts that there is “contravention”, and
that contravention concerns misbranding the product and paying less
tax. Under the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the first peti-
tioner and those trading in the same product - betel nut - have had
many rounds of litigation, Eventually, as seen from the Exts.P1 to P5
proceedings, this Court and the Revenue accepted that the product is
not supari and it attracts lesser tax. The Exts.P6, P6(a), P7, and P7(a)
are the first petitioner’s purchase and supply invoices.
28. The Exts.P8 and P8(a) are important; they are the first pe-
titioner’s recent GST returns for June and August, 2018. In those re-
turns, the first petitioner has assigned the same HSN Code, as he did
reflect in Ext.P9 invoice. He paid tax only at 5%. Thus the documents
before the assessing authority and those that accompanied the con-
signment accord with one another.
29. In this context, we may examine J.K. Synthetics Limited v.
Commercial Taxes Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 276, On how to Interpret Tax
Statutes, the Supreme Court machinery provisions, “which should be
construed like any other statute”, It has also held that “the power to
levy and collect interest is substantive law though part of machinery
provision”.
30. In J.K. Synthetics Limited the issue was whether the ap-
pellant should pay interest on the additional sales tax. The Revenue, as
it has done here, contended that when the law enjoins on the Assessee
to files a ‘return’, it can only mean a true and correct return, that is, a
return which reflects the tax due on final assessment, The Supreme
Court in that context has held that the information to be furnished in
the return “must be ‘correct and complete’, that is, true and complete
to the best of knowledge and belief, without the dealer being guilty of
willful omission.” The dealer, according to J.K. Synthetics Limited,
must deposit the full tax due, based on the information furnished. And
that information must be correct and complete to the best of the deal-
er’s knowledge and belief. If the dealer has furnished full particulars
regarding his business, without willfully omitting or withholding any
particular information affecting the assessment of tax, and if he hon-
estly believes to be ‘correct and complete’, the dealer is said to have
acted ‘bona fide’ in depositing the tax due and filing the return. Of
course, the tax so deposited is to be deemed to be provisional and sub-
ject to necessary adjustments under the final assessment.
31. To support its ratio, J.K. Synthetics Limited accepts the
minority of view in Associated Cement Co. Ltd., v. CTO, (1981) 4 SCC
578 And it has finally held that if the assessee pays the tax, which ac-
cording to him is due based on the Information supplied in his return,
there would be no default on his part to meet his statutory obligation.
Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that the ‘tax payable’ by him is
not paid’ and that he is liable for consequences.
32. The correctness of the Exts.P8 and P8(a) accepted, as held
in J.K. Synthetics Limited, we will examine what amounts to statutory
violation or contravention under Section 129 of the Act. Apt is the case
decided by this Court : Rams v. Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner in
Rams contracted with the Government of India to print and supply a
large number of telephone directories. For this purpose, he procured
paper from the Tamil Nadu government agency. When the paper was
under transport, at Kochi a sales tax officer detained the lorry, under
Section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  63