9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings now initiated against the petitioner with respect to the period prior to the date of submission of the application for registration, subject to various provisions contained in the KVAT Act, including section 16(2). In the result exhibit P9 is quashed. The respondent is directed to consider exhibit P8 afresh and to allow date of correction with respect to the date of commencement of business as requested therein, subject to the observations made above. - W.P. (C). No. 23569 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2009 - ABDUL REHIM C.K. ,J. C.K. ABDUL REHIM J. The petitioner started a hotel business in April 2007, but failed to get themselves registered under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( the KVAT Act ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the said order. It is noticed from exhibit P9 that the correction sought for was disallowed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner himself had shown the date of commencement of business as April 1, 2008 in the application submitted in form No. I. Further it is observed that the assessment with respect to the year 2007-08 is pending in appeal and therefore such correction cannot be allowed. It is pertinent to note that the application for correction itself was submitted on the premise that there occurred a mistake in the date of commencement of business mentioned in the application. Therefore the finding of the respondent that the correction could not be granted on the basis of the details given in the registration appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect that the registration shall be deemed to have been granted with effect from the date of commencement of the business, irrespective of the date of application for registration, for the purposes like payment of tax under sub-section (5) of section 6 or for opting payment under the compounded rate under section 8. In the case at hand, the authorities concerned have imposed penalty as well as assessment with respect to the year 2007-08. It is evident that in fact the petitioner had carried out business during the said year and the authorities had imposed liability to tax on the petitioner with respect to that year. Therefore it could not be denied that the petitioner had commenced business during the assessment year 2007-08. At the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
