9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook at the facts in W.A. No.2695 of 2015. The impugned judgment in W.A. No.2695 of 2015 was not followed by another learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in W.A. No.202 of 2017; hence the said appeal. 2. The respondent in W.A. No.2695 of 2015 is a metal crusher unit having two machines, one primary and the other secondary, on which permission for compounding was granted. An inspection was conducted by the Intelligence Officer on 19.09.2013. Two Auto Sand Machines were found in the premises, which were not included in the compounding application. Hence penalty proceedings were proposed. The respondents then sought for compounding of offence under Section 74 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity, the Act]. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Single Judge was as to what was the maximum compounding fee collectible against the single offence spread over a financial year. The learned Single Judge looked at the text and found that the proviso limited the maximum compounding fee to Rs. 2 lakhs. Hence the balance amounts were directed to be refunded. The issue is already covered by a judgment of this Division Bench, in WA No.291 of 2016 dated 31.08.2018 [The Intelligence Officer Vs. Amon & Calcutta Co. Ltd.]. However, the learned Senior Counsel seek to submit before us that the said decision has been wrongly rendered without looking at the various amendments over the years. We find that the decision was rendered by us and if we agree with the learned Senior Counsel, we have no way, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows: "2008: (17) in section 74, in sub-section (1), after clause (a), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided that the maximum compounding fee collectable against a single offence spread over several return periods in a financial year shall be two lakh rupees." xxx xxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he KVAT Act being a month. Subsequently, Section 74(1) of the Act was amended enhancing the limit provided from two lakhs to four lakhs. We notice that there is slight difference in the wording employed in 2009 and 2011. We also appreciate the manner in which the arguments were advanced before us, which at first blush would look attractive; but on deeper contemplation would be clearly unsustainable and untenable. 9. We have to give a purposive interpretation to the proviso and the amendments made, especially avoiding any anomalous situation in the imposition of compounding fees on offences under the Act and ensuring that the enhancements made by the legislature are not rendered nugatory. Looking at the amendment made in 2009, if we accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
