Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (5) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ls of the first respondent. The product manufactured by the petitioner is one, which has been notified by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, by virtue of which, the petitioner is entitled to have exemption as per Entry 55 (2) of the 1st schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was enjoying the said benefit and was pursuing the business. 3. While so, in September 2005, the petitioner got the unit mechanised, as a result of which, the petitioner came out from the purview of the exemption provided under Entry 55 (2) of the 1st schedule. It is stated that the petitioner has been collecting the tax accordingly and the payment was being effected to the Government, then and there. 4. In the meanwhile, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ities pursued by the petitioner in collecting tax from the customers during the period when the petitioner stood exempted. Detailed enquiry was conducted, which revealed even the minute aspects involved leading to the impugned orders and it is stated that the course pursued by the respondents is well within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstances. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 06.01.2012, asserting that no 'option' was ever submitted by the petitioner so as to enable the first respondent to invoke the power under Section 6(1A)(b). Reference is also made to the other relevant provisions as well, particularly, Rule 10A, which specifies the form in which option is to be exercised, i.e., Form 1F. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is also stated that the impugned orders have been passed in conformity with the statutory prescription and that, no interference is called for. 9. Section 6(1A)(b) reads as follows: "(b) where the sale of any goods is exempted at the point of sale by any dealer, such dealer may, at his option, pay tax in respect of the sale of such goods and thereupon he shall, whatever be his total turnover, be liable to pay tax on the taxable turnover for the year." So also, Rule 10A, is extracted below: "10A. Filing of option for collection and payment of tax:- Every dealer opting to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 6 shall file application in Form 1F before the assessing authority. The option shall be deem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o also, the petitioner has not produced the order imposing penalty under Section 67, while it is stated that the said liability has already been cleared, there being no challenge in respect of the same. Exts.P2 to P7 orders reveal that the illegality was brought to light, only in the course of verification of some declarations received from the check post, which substantiated the collection of tax by the petitioner on several instances during the period of exemption enjoyed by her. It was only on confronting the petitioner as to the above incriminating circumstances, that she sought to file Ext.P1 reply, pointing out the extent of tax collected to the tune of Rs.34,800/-(Rupees thirty four thousand eight hundred) and expressing willingness .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en thousand) in Section 67 proceedings, which is stated as remitted. 12. It is seen from Exts.P2 to P7 that the assessment has been made by the first respondent only in respect of the transaction for the months of April, May, June, July and August 2005 and never beyond, for the obvious reason that the petitioner got the unit mechanised in September 2005, coming out of the purview of exemption under Entry 55 (2) of the 1st schedule, and has been paying the necessary tax to the department. Since the petitioner did not choose to produce the 'books of accounts' and did not turn up for the personal hearing, there was no opportunity for the first respondent to have the accounts verified and to ascertain the contents of Ext.P1 reply. This being .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates