9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing monthly returns and paying tax which were being accepted. Thus considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioner. In view of the fact that there is no order permitting compounding of the assessment, it is to be completed under section 5. Exhibit P9 is quashed. - W.P. (C). No. 11888 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 26-5-2008 - JOSEPH K.M. , J. K.M. JOSEPH J. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer in gold and silver ornaments under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner filed return for the assessment year 2002-03. He submitted exhibit P4 application for compounding in form 21 on April 2, 2002. According to him, it was done, thinking that the rate of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment Pleader. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a case where the petitioner had filed the application for compounding for the assessment year 2002-03 on April 3, 2002 under the belief that tax liability is limited to 120 per cent for the previous year. Upon coming to know that there was an amendment under which the liability was enhanced to two hundred per cent, he decided to withdraw the application for compounding. Accordingly, exhibit P5 was filed on April 29, 2002. He would submit that the law is that once compounding is permitted by way of an order under rule 30 of the KGST Rules, it cannot be withdrawn as it was a bilateral contract from which one party cannot unilaterally resile. He would submit that, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l return in Form 9 on or before the first day of May of the succeeding year along with the proof of payment of tax or other amount due under the Act. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), in the case of works contract where an express provision is made in the agreement for payment of tax in accordance with the provisions of subsection (7) of section 7, instead of making application in accordance with sub-rule (1) above, a copy of such agreement shall be filed before the assessing authority. (7) The tax due in respect of contracts falling under the proviso to sub-section (7A) of section 7 shall be paid in full after deducting the payments already made by the contractor and the amount deducted by the awarder: Provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission. There is no order granting permission under rule 30 of the Rules. Till the permission is granted, it cannot be said that there was a binding contract between the parties. Once there is a binding bilateral contract, it cannot be gainsaid that one party cannot unilaterally resile. I would think that in the facts of this case, admittedly when the petitioner has given exhibit P5 and what is more, when there was no order granting permission under rule 30, it was not open to the authority under exhibit P9 series issued in the year 2005 to take the view that the petitioner must be held to the earlier application for compounding. All the more so, the unrebutted allegations in the writ petition would show that the petitioner was filing month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
