9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred? Held that: - when the statutory provisions detailing the procedure to be followed by an assessee, for the purpose of payment of tax on compounded basis, contemplate the consideration, by the department, of an application preferred by an assessee, and an intimation to be given to the assessee as to whether or not his application was accepted, for the purposes of enabling the assessee to discharge his liability on compounded basis, the respondent cannot, by a delayed action on its part, prevent an assessee from discharging the liability on compounded basis - In the instant case, since the assessee, after opting to pay tax on compounded basis, had to commence payment of tax on the said basis in the first quarter of the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him during the previous assessment year - It is for the Commercial Tax Department in the State to look into this lapse on the part of the officers under the department and take appropriate action against the said officers, in the event of a finding that there was negligent conduct on the part of the officers in permitting the assessee to pay tax on compounded basis. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(C). Nos. 12649 And 23157 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2017 - A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. For The Petitioner : Sri.Jose Jacob Adv. For The Respondent : Smt. Jasmine. M. M. JUDGMENT As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on seeking payment of tax on compounded basis, and to assess the petitioner on regular basis for the said assessment year. Although the petitioner preferred a detailed reply to the said notice, the objections of the petitioner were overruled and the proposal to subject the petitioner to tax under the regular provisions, was confirmed by Ext.P16 order, that is impugned in WP(C) No.12649 of 2017. Similar orders, Exts.P17, P18 and P19 were passed assessing the petitioner under the regular provisions of the KVAT Act for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2016-17 in respect of which, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 30.04.2016 for payment of tax on compounded basis, which as already stated, had not been rejected or cancelled by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the petitioner was put on notice of the proposal by the respondent to deny the permission, sought for by the petitioner, to pay tax on compounded basis under Section 8 of the KVAT Act. As already noted, the petitioner had, through applications dated 22.04.2015 and 30.04.2016, sought for payment of tax on compounded basis under Section 8 of the KVAT Act, during the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. The applications submitted by the petitioner were not rejected by the respondent before the expiry of the first quarter of the relevant assessment year, when the petitioner was to discharge his liability to tax in terms of Section 8 of the KVAT Act. The first notice indicating a proposal to reject the application for payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Section 8 of the KVAT Act. The non communication of any such rejection order by the respondent, effectively estopped it from subsequently issuing an order rejecting the application, since by that time the assessee was justified in discharging its liability in accordance with Section 8 of the KVAT Act, for which he had opted. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Johnson Johnson Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner [2009 23 VST 274] is authority for the proposition that, when an assessee opts for payment of tax on compounded basis, and discharges his liability on the said basis, and the amounts are accepted by the department without demur, then the department cannot subsequently turn around and subject the assessee to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notwithstanding the said proposal issued to the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16, when the assessee applied for a similar permission for paying tax on compounded basis for the next assessment year (2016-17) on 30.04.2017, the respondent still did not act on the said application and communicate any rejection of the application to the assessee within the first quarter of the said assessment year. Even for the assessment year 2016-17, the proposal to reject the application submitted by the assessee was served on the assessee only on 06.02.2017, which is in the last quarter of the assessment year 2016-17. In my view, this amounts to a serious lapse on the part of the department in the matter of issuing notices to an assessee, who in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
