TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Assessee's Victory, State Challenges Decision with Revisions</h1> The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the first appellate authority's order in favor of the assessee, leading to the State filing ... Validity of revised assessment - reopening of the assessment which was completed based on compounded rate of tax - 'Bus body' built on chassis supplied by the customer - Section 25 of the KVAT Act - whether the Assessing Officer can revoke the permission by exercising any of the powers vested on him? - HELD THAT:- It is evident that there exists divergent views among the legal precedents. In George Thomas [2011 (12) TMI 728 - KERALA HIGH COURT] relying on Joy Alukkas Traders [2009 (11) TMI 960 - KERALA HIGH COURT] it is held that the powers vested under Section 19 (1) & 35 of the KGST Act (which are in pari materia with Section 25 and 56 of the KVAT Act) are one and same in nature. But considering the rulings cited on behalf of the assessee, including Koothattukulam Liquors [2014 (3) TMI 782 - Supreme Court], Bhima Jewellers [2014 (10) TMI 411 - SUPREME COURT] and other judgments, there is a reiteration of the legal principle that the option for compounding once accepted creates. Concluded contract which cannot be rescinded by one. of the parties or annulled through a re-opening of the assessment concluded. There exists divergent views in various 'legal precedents - we think it only appropriate to refer the questions involved, for an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench. The Registry shall post the above cases before the Full Bench, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Issues:1. Validity of revised assessments under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.2. Interpretation of the permission for payment of tax at the compounded rate.3. Legality of re-opening completed assessments under the compounding scheme.4. Applicability of Section 25 of the KVAT Act to assessments under the compounding scheme.5. Contrasting views on the nature of compounding permission as a concluded contract.6. Jurisdictional validity of the compounding permissions granted.Analysis:1. The judgment involves a challenge to revised assessments under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, arising from a common order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the first appellate authority's order in favor of the assessee, leading to the State filing revisions against the same.2. The issue of interpreting the permission for payment of tax at the compounded rate under Section 8 of the KVAT Act was raised. The Assessing Officer found the permission granted to the assessee to be illegal and unsustainable based on previous court decisions regarding the tax liability for goods sold under certain circumstances.3. The legality of re-opening completed assessments under the compounding scheme was questioned. The Tribunal held that assessments for specific years were time-barred and could not be re-opened without canceling the compounding permission, as per the procedure outlined in Section 56 of the KVAT Act.4. The applicability of Section 25 of the KVAT Act to assessments completed under the compounding scheme was debated. The Tribunal found that re-opening assessments without canceling the compounding permission was impermissible, emphasizing the need to follow the prescribed procedures.5. Divergent views emerged on whether the compounding permission constituted a concluded contract. While one judgment equated the powers under Sections 19(1) and 35 of the KGST Act with Sections 25 and 56 of the KVAT Act, other decisions emphasized that once the compounding option is accepted, it creates a binding contract that cannot be rescinded unilaterally.6. The jurisdictional validity of the compounding permissions granted was questioned, with arguments raised on whether the permissions were void ab initio due to jurisdictional issues or merely erroneous exercises of jurisdiction. The need for a Full Bench to provide an authoritative pronouncement on these complex legal issues was deemed necessary due to the conflicting legal precedents.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal considerations surrounding the validity of revised assessments, the nature of compounding permissions, and the jurisdictional aspects of re-opening completed assessments under the compounding scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
