2012 (2) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pleader for the petitioner and advocate Sri. R. Muralidharan appearing for the respondent-assessee. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following: The respondent is a dealer in gold jewellery, which applied for payment of tax at compounded rate for the year 2007-2008 as provided under section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. After submission of the application on due date in terms of rule 11(1), the respondent started paying tax at compounded rate. However, instead of paying tax at 200 per cent of the highest tax paid for the turnover conceded in any of the three preceding years, the respondent offered to pay tax only at 150 per cent of the highest tax paid for the three preceding years. This is because the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax at compounded rate. According to the Government Pleader, following this decision revision has to be allowed by vacating the orders of the two lower authorities and by sustaining the assessment which is based on request of the assessee accepted by the assessing officer. Before us counsel for the respondent contended that the decision rendered in the context of the KGST assessment is not applicable in the KVAT assessment because rule 11(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules provides for acceptance or rejection of compounding application. This is a case where the assessee offered to pay tax at compounded rate only at 150 per cent of the previous year's tax and not at 200 per cent as assessed by the officer. So much so, according to the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng other than the tax payable under section 8(f) of the Act. We do not think the assessee can now revert back for turnover based assessment because returns filed every month were not accompanied by payment of tax on the taxable turnover but tax payment was under the compounding scheme, though by mistake at 150 per cent of previous years' tax as against correct rate of 200 per cent. We do not find any justification for the Tribunal or the first appellate authority to interfere with the assessment which is made based on application filed by the assessee but by adopting the correct percentage of tax payable under the compounding scheme under the amended provisions of section 8(f) applicable for the year 2007-2008. We, therefore, allow the revi....