Branch-wise compounding must use conceded tax figures, with purchase and additional sales tax included only in limited KGST cases.

For compounding under the Kerala VAT regime, the statutory formula was to be applied branch-wise, with the Head Office and each branch treated as separate business units. The benchmark for the three preceding years was the tax conceded in the return or accounts, not tax finally assessed or revised on appeal. Purchase tax under the KGST regime could be included in the computation, but the VAT circular excluded it for the VAT period. Additional sales tax followed the same distinction and was includable only where tax had been paid under Sections 5 and 5A in the KGST regime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for compounding under Section 8(f)(i) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Head Office and branches were to be treated separately while identifying the highest tax payable in the three preceding years; (ii) whether the basis of computation was the tax conceded in the returns or accounts or the tax finally assessed or revised in appeal; (iii) whether purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was includable in the tax conceded for the relevant preceding years; and (iv) whether additional sales tax under Section 5D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was includable in the same computation.

Issue (i): Whether, for compounding under Section 8(f)(i) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Head Office and branches were to be treated separately while identifying the highest tax payable in the three preceding years.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated a branch as an independent place of business for the purpose of calculating compounded tax. The provision required identification of the highest tax payable by the dealer as conceded in the return or accounts for any of the three preceding years, and the structure of the compounding clause, read with Explanation II and the related circular, supported separate computation for each distinct business unit. The provision for new branches also reinforced the legislative intent to compute tax branch-wise rather than on a consolidated entity-wide basis.

Conclusion: The computation had to be made separately for the Head Office and each branch. This issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the basis of computation was the tax conceded in the returns or accounts or the tax finally assessed or revised in appeal.

Analysis: The words used in Section 8(f)(i) were specific and referred to tax conceded in the return or accounts. That wording did not permit substitution of assessed or appellate figures in place of the conceded figures. The earlier appellate authority and the Tribunal were therefore not justified in treating the assessed or revised tax as the benchmark for the three preceding years.

Conclusion: The basis was the tax conceded in the returns or accounts, not the assessed or revised tax. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was includable in the tax conceded for the relevant preceding years.

Analysis: The expression "highest tax payable" was wide enough to take in purchase tax, and the statute itself did not create an exclusion for purchase tax under the KGST regime. At the same time, the departmental circular issued for the VAT period specifically excluded purchase tax under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and that instruction was binding on the Department. The result was a distinction between the KGST period and the VAT period for purposes of inclusion.

Conclusion: Purchase tax was includable for the KGST period but not includable for the VAT period. This issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether additional sales tax under Section 5D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was includable in the same computation.

Analysis: The treatment of additional sales tax followed the same principle as purchase tax, but with an important qualification based on the legal character of the tax actually paid. Where the dealer had been assessed under Sections 5 and 5A and had paid additional sales tax, that levy could be taken into account. However, where tax had been paid on a compounded basis, additional sales tax under Section 5D could not be brought into the compounding base merely because it had once been levied or collected under the then-prevailing position.

Conclusion: Additional sales tax was includable only where the dealer had paid tax under Sections 5 and 5A in the KGST regime. This issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessment had to be redone on a branch-wise basis using the tax conceded in the returns or accounts as the benchmark, with purchase tax and additional sales tax included only to the extent permitted by the judgment's distinctions between the KGST and VAT periods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a compounding provision expressly uses "tax conceded in the return or accounts" and treats branches as independent units, the computation must follow that language strictly, and departmental circulars validly clarifying the scheme bind the assessing authority.

---