9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. There was an amendment by way of exhibit P1 erratum. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the same. However, before granting permission in terms of rule 30 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, the petitioner came to know that the enhanced rate of two hundred per cent will be demanded from him based on exhibit P1 erratum. As the enhanced rate was not in the contemplation of the petitioner, it is the case of the petitioner that he withdrew the option by exhibit P5 dated April 29, 2002. It is his further case that tax under section 5 of the Act has been paid as per returns. There was no objection noted by the assessing authority at that time. No provisional demand for tax was also made. Exhibit P7 notice dated March 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission under rule 30 of the Rules, the petitioner has decided to withdraw the application. Rule 30 of the KGST Rules, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: "30. Payment of tax at compounded rates.-(1) Every dealer who is eligible to pay tax at compounded rate under section 7 of the Act and who desires to exercise the options provided for under the said section may apply to the assessing authority concerned for permission to pay tax at the rates specified therein in form 21 on or before the first day of May of the year to which the option relates: Provided that the assessing authority may admit an application filed after the prescribed date for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. (2) On receipt of the applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be allowed only on production of certificate obtained from the awarder showing the amount and nature of contract, amount deducted and the mode of remittance of the amount to the Government." The assessing authority has in the order under attack taken note of the submission that the petitioner had withdrawn the application. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner had not submitted exhibit P5 application seeking withdrawal of the application. It is stated that there is no provision for giving such a right to the dealers under the Act and Rules and there is no jurisdiction for the assessing authority to entertain such withdrawal application. It is stated that this court has already discussed the issue in Udaya Traders v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
