2007 (12) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ized. Exhibit P11 challenged in this writ petition is the final assessment order for the period 2005-06. By this order, tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent has been levied on the petitioner and the balance tax due to be remitted is Rs. 1,59,60,720 and interest is also levied. The contention raised is that what is manufactured by the petitioner consists of household pesticides and insecticides which fall under serial No. 45(5) of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act and the rate of tax payable thereon is only four per cent. According to the petitioner, despite this, petitioner was levied 12.5 per cent tax mainly relying on S.R.O. No. 82/06 and exhibit P12 clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure of the controversy raised by the petitioner there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner not to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal. The argument that in view of exhibit P12, the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the remedy of appeal will not be effective, also cannot be accepted. It is true that by virtue of the provisions contained in the KVAT Act, the Departmental officers are bound by the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. But in so far as the petitioner is concerned, that cannot stand in the way of the petitioner. This very contention was urged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29947 of 2006. In that writ petition, the petitioner had disputed the rate of tax pay....