9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so was introduced only after the commencement of the subject assessment year being 2016-17. The petitioner had not applied for a compounding in that year. The mere fact that the petitioner's work, which commenced in the previous year, had been compounded for that year would not require continuance under the scheme in the subsequent year, for reason of there being no provision available requiring such a continuance. It is pertinent that though the petitioner filed a quarterly return and not a monthly return, the petitioner did not show the tax payable under the compounded scheme, but however made a self assessment under the regular scheme itself. In such circumstance, the omission to file a monthly return can only be considered an inadver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or compounding under Section 8(a) of the KVAT Act in all the said three years; 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The permissions granted by the Department is produced as Exts.P1 to P3. The contract concluded on 31.10.2015. 5. The petitioner, in the same year ie., in 2015-16 was awarded with another contract of four lining work between Kazhakkootam and Mukkola. Though the agreement was executed in April 2015, the works commenced only in September 2015. The petitioner on the basis of the permission at Ext.P3 for the year 2015-16, paid compounded tax for the first bill, which was cleared in the assessment year 2015-16. The work continued in the next assessment year also ie., in 2016-17. 6. The petitioner, in the year 2016-17, did not apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT Act. It is also submitted that a dealer, who seeks assessment under the regular scheme, ought to have filed a monthly return and a quarterly return could have been filed only by a dealer under the compounding scheme as is provided under Rule 24 of the KVAT Rules. It is argued that the conduct of the assessee insofar as filing quarterly returns, indicates that he intended to continue compounding. 8. What assumes significance is that the 4th proviso was not available at the time of commencement of the assessment year 2016-17. The resolution of the dispute would require an examination of the provisions as available for the respective years. It is stated in the statement filed that there was a proviso under Section 8(a) of the KVAT Act f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer, who had applied for compounding, for a work in the earlier year to continue under the compounding scheme itself in that year also. At the commencement of the assessment year 2016-17 also there was no such requirement. Only by 18.07.2016, the 4th proviso to Section 8(a) of the KVAT Act now relied on by the Assessing Officer was introduced which reads as hereunder:- Provided also that subject to eligibility a work once compounded under this clause, shall remain compounded till the completion of such work . 10. From the time of introduction of the 4th proviso, necessarily there is a mandate to continue the compounding when applied for and allowed in an year; at least of that work commenced in the year. However, the proviso was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
