9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the facts disclosed that the partnership firm had filed a return for one month ie: April 2016 and paid tax as per the compounding scheme. The contention of the stoppage of the unit also cannot be believed since even as per the returns filed by the assessee for the months of May to August, 2016, there was tax payable on conceded turnover and the same paid under Section 6 as evidenced from Exhibit P8 series of returns. Court has found that there is no reason for the Assessing Officer to consider the withdrawal application, since the assessee has already acted in accordance with the compounding application made and remitted the tax due under the scheme. The order granting permission to compound was also made on 17.05.2016. Based on it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icense etc. in her name. They had also filed the return for one month, April 2016 and paid tax under the compounding scheme ie: under Section 8 (b). The petitioner also paid tax under Section 6 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity KVAT Act ] for the months May to August 2016. The petitioner's contention is that since the compounding has not been accepted and an order passed, the petitioner cannot be asked to continue compounding and the petitioner is entitled to resile from the compounding scheme, which, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is a contract between parties which would be concluded only on an order being issued. 4. The petitioner herself has produced Exhibit P7 and P7 (a), the permissions issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on conceded turnover and the same paid under Section 6 as evidenced from Exhibit P8 series of returns. 6. More apposite on the facts of this case would be the decision of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35496 of 2015 dated 22.12.2015 [ M/s.Panthalookkaran Granites v. The Commercial Tax Officer ]. Hence W.P.(C) No.486 of 2017 would stand dismissed. 7. W.P.(C) No.455 of 2017 is filed against the penalty proceedings at Exhibit P13 series, which were issued on the reasoning that the petitioner had purposefully evaded payment of tax. The petitioner was issued with notice of penalty for reason of the petitioner having not paid the compounded tax. On receipt of notice of penalty, the petitioner had paid the tax under Section 6 and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
