9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Authority completed the assessment, the question of either hearing the revision petitioner or rejecting the application seeking compounding would arise. Therefore, the reason brought out in the revision petition that the Assessing Authority if could not bifurcate the turnover of 2007-08 for the purpose of arriving at the proportionate tax, ought to have rejected as considering the application not in order cannot be accepted - once the dealer had opted out and paid tax under the Scheme of compounding, can never be allowed to revert back - Following decision of Zodiac Regency v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another [2014 (2) TMI 962 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - OT. Rev.No. 60 of 2013, T.A.(VAT) NO.1640/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the First Appellate Authority which ended in dismissal and again the petitioner approached the Tribunal in a second appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before us in the above revision. 4. As against this, learned Government Pleader places reliance on the latest decision of this Court in Fashion Jewellery vs Commercial Tax Officer (2013(4) KLT 76) to bring to our notice that provisions under Section 8(f)(i) does not provide for classification of establishment of assessee, whether having one branch or two branches, for the purpose of determining total turnover to determine annual turnover for the purpose of tax. He specifically places reliance on paragraphs 2 and 3 which read as under:- "2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrive at proportionate reduction of annual turnover of the previous years. 6. In the present case, though the petitioner has indicated that one of the shops was closed, according to the revision petitioner's counsel, the request could have been rejected and he must have been asked for regular assessment instead of compounding.Therefore, the Assessing Authority was not justified in proceeding with the compounding, if it was possible for bifurcating the previous year's turnover and reduced proportionately the tax to be paid. 7. Both the revision petitioner's counsel and Government Pleader place reliance on sub-rule 2 of Rule 11, procedure to be followed while considering option of the dealer for payment of compounding tax. Sub-rule 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
