2014 (9) TMI 907 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of the permission already granted to satisfy the tax at the compounded rates - Held that - Court finds that the matter was finalised by the concerned authority, pursuant to Ext.P7, by passing Ext.P10 order dated '1.9.2011'. If at all there was grievance with regard to the correctness of Ext.P10, it was for the petitioner to pursue the same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. This Court, after three years, does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P10, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction. Interference is declined - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to correctness and sustainability of order cancelling permission to satisfy tax at compounded rates under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer cancelling the permission granted to satisfy tax at compounded rates under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner argued that the work undertaken was a works contract and thus eligible for compounded rates under Section 8(a) (i) of the Act. The petitioner had initially been granted permission to pay tax at compounded rates, but later received a notice proposing to cancel this permission based on the nature of the contract. The petitioner approached the court previously, and the matter was disposed of directing the authority to consider objections and finalize the matter. Subsequently, the authority issued a notice of hearing, to which the petitioner submitted objections leading to the order cancelling the compounding facility. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging this order and seeking various reliefs, including declaring the notice illegal and quashing it, as well as mandamus to abstain from assessment under Section 25 and to abide by the compounding option.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the court found that the authority had finalized the matter by passing the order cancelling the compounding facility. The court noted that if there were grievances with the order, the petitioner should have pursued them before the appropriate forum in a timely manner. The court, after three years, declined to interfere with the order, stating that there was no reason to do so at that stage. The court dismissed the writ petition without prejudice, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies in accordance with the law.