Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

MATHEW V.J Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

2016 (10) TMI 440 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Cancellation of option to pay tax under compounded rate under Section 8(C) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act - compounding of offence of non-payment of tax in terms of Section 74 of the KVAT Act - option of filing a revised return within three months from the date of the compounding order under Section 22(10) of the KVAT Act - whether cancellation of the option to pay under compounded rate justified? - Held that: - the first communication by the petitioner to the respondents, bringing to their n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the 1st respondent, cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner for payment of tax under compounded rate. - Completion of assessment as per best judgement basis under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Held that: - the respondent assessing authority would have to consider the specific claim of the petitioner for the grant of input tax credit/rebate of taxes paid under Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the KVAT Act, and also give credit to the payments effected by the petitioner, while paying .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Y.K.T JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P7 to P7(c) orders passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the option of payment of tax under compounded rate, granted to the petitioner for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 under Section 8(C) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act. There is also a challenge against Ext.P8 series of notices issued to the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act to the extent they propose completion .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 74 of the KVAT Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 22(10) of the KVAT Act, the dealer has an option of filing a revised return, incorporating therein details of the amounts that he had not paid by way of tax, and on the said returns being filed, the assessment should be completed by taking into account even these payments, which the petitioner has made subsequently. It is therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the marginal delay occasioned in approaching .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

apprehension of the petitioner that, while adjudicating the matter pursuant to Ext.P8 series of notices, the 1st respondent will not give credit/rebate to the petitioner, of the taxes paid under Sections 6 (1) and 6(2) of the KVAT Act. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner would also have to be given credit of the tax paid by him on compounded basis, while completing the assessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the KVAT Act. Although these amounts are not exorbitant, and the petitioner had paid the purchase tax in respect of the majority of the transaction, the fact remains that the entire purchase tax liability under Section 6(2) was not initially discharged by the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner had compounded the offence departmentally, and by virtue of the provisions of Section 22(10) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner had an option of filing a revised return within three months from the date of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nths, that is granted under Section 22(10) of the KVAT Act. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not comply with this requirement of filing revised returns in respect of the tax amount not paid under Section 6(2), I cannot find fault with Exts.P7 series of orders passed by the 1st respondent under Section 8(C) of the KVAT Act read with Rule 11(6) of the KVAT Rules, cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner for payment of tax under compounded rate. The challenge in the writ petition against t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version