9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the compounding provision. In fact, the petitioner has remitted the tax as per the compounding scheme provided under the Act. Since the rate of tax has been reduced for certain period during which the Bar Attached Hotels were entitled for parcel sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor, the petitioner found that the his returns filed under the compounding scheme should be treated as normal return and the Assessing Authority should proceed to complete the regular return. There are no illegality in the impugned orders - petition dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner: By Advs. Sri. Raghunathan, Sri. Premjit Nagendran, Smt. M. Shylaja, Sri. Rishal K. For the Respondents: By Adv. Smt. Reshmita R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the normal procedure and not under the compounding provisions. In absence of the order on the application though the petitioner has filed returns in the Form prescribed under the compounding scheme under the compounding provision but, the same should be treated as normal returns and not the compounding returns. It is therefore, submits that the assessment order in Exhibit P-2 treating the petitioner s return under the compounding scheme is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Reshmita Ramachandran, learned Government Pleader submits that the Section 7(1) (a) provides for filing the return for whole year along with monthly returns when the application for compounding is pending. There is no time limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing of this revision, counsel for the respondent assessee pointed out that State has not filed separate revision against original order of the Tribunal and so much so, merits of the case cannot be considered by this court. However, Government Pleader pointed out that the challenge against order in review application is sufficient to redress the grievance of the State in as much as if this court finds that review application was wrongly dismissed by the Tribunal, then State will be entitled to relief against original order in appeal. We are inclined to accept this contention because on going through the impugned orders of the Tribunal disposing of the review application, we find that new facts furnished by the department are narrated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication originally filed by him. It is a fact that the compounding application filed by the assessee remained in force and the assessee acted upon the same by remitting tax along with monthly returns strictly in terms of the compounding application. At no point of time the Assessing Officer rejected the compounding application and when assessment was take up, he accepted the compounding application but made correction with regard to the tax payable for the preceding year i.e. 1998-99, which also constitutes the basis for payment of tax at compounded rate for 2000-2001. We notice that but for the correction that the Assessing Officer made for the tax payable for the year 1998-99 which led to an increase in the tax payable at compounded rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer while considering assessment and after correcting the mistake with regard to tax payable for 1998- 99, the Assessing Officer in fact accepted the compounding application and allowed the claim of the assessee. It is seen that assessee has not withdrawn the application for compounding at any time and on the other hand, assessee acted upon the said application and remitted the tax for the whole year along with monthly returns strictly in terms of the said application. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is not entitled to back track and request the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment based on the turnover returned by the assessee. It is to be noted that the offer to pay tax at compounded rate gives an immunity to the assessee fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of regular assessment. Therefore, the scope for appeal is only limited to assessee's challenge against modification of the tax payable for earlier year namely, 1998-99. We also make it clear that since the modification in the tax payable at compounded rate is made by the officer only in the course of assessment, no interest could be demanded from the assessee under Section 23(3) or Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act for any period until default arises. In other words, interest should be payable on the differential amount for the default period i.e. for the period after service of notice along with assessment order. 6. The assessee has been filing his return under the compounding provision and it is not the first time that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
