9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt assessing authorities in all the cases shall proceed to complete the assessment, for the AYs as per the regular provisions of the KVAT Act and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act – decided in favour of petitioner. - WP(C).No. 18028, 18043, 18492 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2014 - MR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.T.G.ABHILASH FOR THE RESPONDENT : GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T JUDGEMENT The issues involved in these three writ petitions being similar, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. The petitioners in the writ petitions, who are conducting business in Granite Metals, are assessees under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act ). As per the provisions of Section 8(b) of the KVAT Act, any dealer producing granite metals with the aid of mechanized crushing machines may, at his option, instead of paying tax as per the regular mode of assessment under the KVAT Act, pay tax at the compounded rate envisaged under that Section. The compounding provision, as it stood in the Assessment Year 2008-09, reads as follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate applicable to primary crushers shall be at fifty per cent of the aggregate of the tax payable on secondary crushers. 2. The petitioners in the above writ petitions opted for payment of tax at the compounded rate, as envisaged in Section 8(b) of the KVAT Act, under the belief that the rate applicable to them, insofar as they owned only a single crushing machine, would be only an amount of ₹ 25,000/-, which was the figure indicated in the proviso to Section 8(b) (iv) of the KVAT Act at the time when they were called upon to exercise their option. The applications preferred by the petitioners, opting to pay tax at compounded rate, were on this assumption regarding the amount to be paid. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.18043/2010, Ext.P1 is the permission dated 08.07.2009, given to the petitioner by the first respondent, to pay tax at the compounded rate for an amount of ₹ 25,000/- as envisaged in the proviso as it then stood. It is seen from Ext.P1 permission that the application of the petitioner, that was considered by the first respondent, was the one dated 29.04.2009. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.18028/2010 and 18492/2010, although t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rates were preferred taking into account the provisions of Section 8(b)(iv) as it stood pursuant to the Kerala Finance Bill 2009, but before the Kerala Finance Act of 2009, it was not open to the respondents to change the very basis on which the option was exercised and compel them to opt for payment of tax at compounded rates taking into account the higher amount brought in by the Kerala Finance Act, 2009. 4. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein, the stand taken is that the petitioners having exercised their option to pay tax at compounded rate, it was not open to them to resile from the said option and choose to pay tax at regular rates on finding that the rate of tax has been enhanced. It is pointed out, by referring to the various decisions of this Court, that a compounding option once exercised is binding on the assessee as well as the Government and neither are allowed to resile from the same. It is also contended that, merely because the Kerala Finance Act 2009 had the effect of changing the rate of tax that had to be paid in terms of the compounded provisions, the assessee who had opted for the compounding scheme could not resile the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to pay tax at compounded rates, there had been an amendment to the provision prescribing the amount to be paid as compounded tax by enhancing the same from ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/-. While under normal circumstances, a change in the rate of tax payable, consequent to an amendment that was effected midway during an assessment year, will not alter the liability of the assessee to pay tax at the amended rates, the amendment does have an impact in the instant case because it changes the very basis of the understanding of the assessee while opting for a payment of tax at compounded rates. In these writ petitions, it is seen that the basis on which the assessees acted, while exercising their option, was the assumption that the tax payable at compounded rates would only be an amount of ₹ 25,000/-. That understanding was changed and, by virtue of the amendment brought in by the Kerala Finance Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.4.2009, the assessee was called upon to pay an amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- in lieu of ₹ 25,000/- The learned Government Pleader would place reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sasi V.V v. Commercial Tax Officer-III, Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
