2013 (7) TMI 784 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of permission for compounded rate of tax - Revised permission granted for the year 2011-12 was withdrawn and the petitioner was issued fresh notice for that year - Held that - Respondent directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible by passing a speaking order in this regard with reference to the relevant facts as well as the relevant provisions of law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to sustainability of revised permission to pay tax at compounded rate, validity of notices for revised permissions, withdrawal of permissions, legality of subsequent actions without notice, compliance with court directives, authority's power to vary compounding option, adherence to statutory rules, necessity of court intervention, expeditious consideration of objections.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the sustainability of Ext.P6 revised permission to pay tax at a compounded rate and Exts.P9, P11, and P13 notices for proposed steps to have revised permission for compounding due to a pending statutory appeal before the Tribunal regarding the root cause. The petitioner became a registered dealer in 2008 and filed an option for compounded tax payment, which was initially granted but later withdrawn. The subsequent events led to the issuance of revised permissions and notices, triggering legal challenges and court interventions.

2. The petitioner availed statutory remedy by approaching the KVAT Tribunal and filed a writ petition challenging the notices issued by the first respondent. The court directed the Tribunal to finalize the appeal promptly and instructed the first respondent to refrain from completing any consequential assessment in the meantime. The petitioner's grievances stemmed from the withdrawal of permissions and subsequent actions taken by the first respondent without proper notice or adherence to court directives.

3. The petitioner contended that the actions of the first respondent, particularly the revised permissions issued without notice for subsequent years, were contrary to previous court judgments. This led to further legal proceedings, including the filing of a fresh writ petition to address the withdrawal of permissions for the year 2011-12. The petitioner raised objections and concerns regarding the legality and procedural fairness of the actions taken by the first respondent.

4. The court heard arguments from both parties, with the petitioner raising concerns about the proceedings turning into empty formalities and the government pleader asserting that the petitioner's apprehensions were misconceived. The legality of the compounding option, the authority's power to vary it, and the relevance of statutory rules, specifically Rule 11(2)(ii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, were discussed during the proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the court decided not to delve into the merits of the case as the matter was still pending before the first respondent for finalization. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the objections raised by the petitioner promptly. The court emphasized the need for a 'speaking order' in accordance with the law, ensuring a thorough review of relevant facts and provisions to address the petitioner's concerns expeditiously.