TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on the one hand, and the tax department on the other, and consequent to the formation of the contract, neither side is permitted to resile therefrom - in the absence of any acceptance of the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was obligated to discharge his liability only on the basis of the regular method of assessment of tax as indicated in Section 6 of the KVAT Act. Since there is no dispute in the instant case that, the petitioner had discharged his liability for the period in question in accordance with Section 6(1) of the KVAT Act, the demand in Ext. P5 notice cannot be legally sustained - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. (C) No.13318 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - MR. A.K.JAYASANKARA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax on compounded basis. Although the petitioner, on receipt of Ext. P3 notice, wrote to the respondents indicating that since the compounding application had not been accepted by the respondents, he was under no liability to pay tax on compounded basis, the said stand of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents, who issued Ext. P5 notice directing the petitioner to remit the differential compounded tax for the assessment year 2016-2017 immediately on receipt of the notice. 4. In the writ petition, Ext. P5 notice is impugned inter alia on the ground that the application for payment of tax on compounded basis, not having been accepted by the respondents, there was no obligation on the petitioner to discharge his tax liability fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on the one hand, and the tax department on the other, and consequent to the formation of the contract, neither side is permitted to resile therefrom. 8. In the instant case, while the petitioner had preferred Ext. P1 application seeking permission for payment of tax on compounded basis, the said application was not acted upon by the respondents, who did not either grant permission or refuse the same. Although a Division Bench of this Court has, in the case of Johnson Johnson Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle 1, Ernakulam and Others [(2009) 23 VST 274 (Ker.)] permitted assessees, who have paid tax on compounded basis, without obtaining any formal permission to do so from the department, to insula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
