Compounding under KVAT remains revocable before sanction, while later frustration may limit future liability when performance becomes impossible.

An application for compounding under the KVAT scheme remains an offer until sanctioned by the assessing authority; filing the application and paying advance tax do not create a concluded arrangement, so withdrawal before sanction is permissible and the assessee may revert to regular assessment. Where a compounding arrangement has already come into existence, a later supervening restraint on business operations may attract frustration under Section 56 of the Contract Act for the period performance becomes impossible. Relief was confined to future liability, and tax already remitted under the scheme was not refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an assessee who had applied for compounding under the KVAT scheme could withdraw the application before sanction and revert to regular assessment; (ii) whether a subsequent restraint on business operations justified relief from the compounding liability under the doctrine of frustration.

Issue (i): whether an assessee who had applied for compounding under the KVAT scheme could withdraw the application before sanction and revert to regular assessment.

Analysis: Section 8(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 show that the option for compounded tax is an application that must be sanctioned or rejected by the assessing authority. Mere filing of the application and payment of advance tax under the scheme do not by themselves create a concluded contract. Until sanction is issued, the application remains an offer capable of withdrawal, and the assessee may opt for regular assessment.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee. Withdrawal before sanction is permissible, and regular assessment can be pursued.

Issue (ii): whether a subsequent restraint on business operations justified relief from the compounding liability under the doctrine of frustration.

Analysis: Where a valid compounding arrangement had already come into existence, a later supervening event that made business operations impossible could attract Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A stay order preventing the assessee from carrying on the quarrying activity constituted such a supervening circumstance for the period during which operations could not be undertaken. However, tax already paid under the scheme was not refundable.

Conclusion: The issue is answered partly in favour of the assessee. Relief from future compounding liability was allowed, but no refund of tax already remitted was granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part, the refusals to permit withdrawal were set aside, and the assessees were permitted to file regular returns for the relevant assessment years, without refund of compounded tax already paid.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for compounding under the KVAT scheme does not become a concluded contract until sanctioned by the assessing authority, and a subsequent supervening event may justify relief under Section 56 only where a concluded compounding arrangement has already been ed by impossibility of performance.

---