Compounded tax does not exempt gold ornament dealers from additional sales tax under a later charging provision.

A dealer in gold or silver ornaments who opts for compounding under section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 remains liable for additional sales tax under section 5D, because the compounding scheme covers only the tax payable under sections 5 and 5A and does not expressly exclude the later levy. The demand for additional tax and interest was also sustained despite the absence of a separate assessment order, as the liability was already admitted and the quantified demand was ascertainable from the monthly tax basis. Interest was recoverable on unpaid tax that had become due.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dealer in gold or silver ornaments who opts to pay tax at compounded rates under section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is liable to pay additional sales tax under section 5D of the Act. (ii) Whether the demand for additional tax and interest could be sustained in the absence of a separate assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether a dealer in gold or silver ornaments who opts to pay tax at compounded rates under section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is liable to pay additional sales tax under section 5D of the Act.

Analysis: Section 5 is the charging provision for sales tax and section 7 provides an optional method of compounding for dealers in gold or silver ornaments or wares. The compounding provision covers the tax payable under sections 5 and 5A and is intended to provide a simplified method of assessment. Section 5D, introduced later, creates a separate levy of additional sales tax on the tax payable under sections 5 and 5A. The language of section 7 does not exclude liability to the later additional tax, and the omission of an express saving or exclusion comparable to the earlier additional tax regime does not permit an inferred exemption. In taxing statutes, nothing can be added by implication where the language is plain.

Conclusion: The dealer remains liable to pay additional sales tax under section 5D, even after opting for compounding under section 7, and the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for additional tax and interest could be sustained in the absence of a separate assessment order.

Analysis: Once liability under section 5D was held to exist, the notices demanding the quantified additional tax did not suffer from legal infirmity. The amount was ascertainable from the admitted monthly tax basis and the assessee had already paid additional tax without protest. Interest was also recoverable under section 23 on tax that had become due and remained unpaid. The challenge based on the manner of notice and absence of a formal assessment did not survive in view of the admitted liability.

Conclusion: The demand for additional tax and interest was valid, and this issue is also decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme did not exempt compounded-rate dealers from the later levy of additional sales tax, and the consequential demand and interest were upheld, leaving no ground for interference with the order under challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: An optional compounding provision that covers tax under specified charging sections does not, by implication, exempt the assessee from a subsequently enacted separate levy when the later provision is expressed in clear charging terms and contains no exclusion for compounded taxpayers.

---