TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t compounded rates:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6,- (a) ................................... (b) Any dealer producing granite metals with the aid of mechanized crushing machine may, at his option, instead of paying tax in accordance with the provisions of the said sections, pay tax at the following rates, namely:- [(i) for each crushing machine of size not exceeding 30.48 cm x 22.86 cm = Rs. 50,000 per annum; (ii) for the each crushing machine of size exceeding 30.48 cm x 22.86 cm but not exceeding 40.64 cm and 25.40 cm = Rs. 1,60,000 per annum; (iii) for the each crushing machine of size exceeding 40.64 cm x 25.40 cm = Rs. 3,20,000 per annum;] (iv) for each cone crusher Rs. 7,50,000 per annum: Provided that in the case of dealers, who opted to pay compounded tax under this clause, no separate assessment shall be made in respect of m-sand produced by them.] [E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- as envisaged in the proviso as it then stood. It is seen from Ext.P1 permission that the application of the petitioner, that was considered by the first respondent, was the one dated 29.04.2009. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.18028/2010 and 18492/2010, although they had also submitted their applications for payment of tax at compounded rates, on 30.04.2009 and 05.05.2009 respectively, based on the proviso to Section 8(b)(iv) that contemplated a payment of Rs. 25,000/- as the tax amount to be paid, the orders permitting them to pay compounded tax were passed only on 03.11.2009 and 30.11.2009 respectively. Thus, in the last mentioned two writ petitions, while the applications for permission to pay tax at compounded rate were filed at a point in time when the proviso envisaged the payment of tax of Rs. 25,000/- for units having a single crushing machine, the formal orders permitting the petitioners to pay tax at compounded rate were passed only in November 2009, by which time, the Kerala Finance Act, 2009 had come into force, altering the very basis on which the application for compounding had been preferred by the petitioners. As already noted, by virtue of the Ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is also contended that, merely because the Kerala Finance Act 2009 had the effect of changing the rate of tax that had to be paid in terms of the compounded provisions, the assessee who had opted for the compounding scheme could not resile therefrom by citing the enhancement of rate of tax. 5. I have heard Sri.Muralidharan Nair and Sri.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions and Smt.Lilly.K.T., the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the petitioners in these writ petitions are persons who exercised the option in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(b) of the KVAT Act for payment of tax at compounded rates. Towards that end, they had preferred applications seeking permission from the assessing authorities for payment of tax at compounded rates. Under normal circumstances, the assessing authorities are expected to act on the application and issue prompt orders, either permitting the assessee to pay tax at compounded rates or refusing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009, the assessee was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of Rs. 25,000/- The learned Government Pleader would place reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sasi V.V v. Commercial Tax Officer-III, Department of Commercial Taxes, Aluva (2010 (1) KHC 636) as affirmed in the judgment dated 19.02.2010 in W.A.No.284/2010, wherein, this Court found that, where a compounding application had been permitted on the basis of the rate of tax provided in the Kerala Finance Bill, 2009 and the said rate of tax was enhanced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2009, which was enacted subsequently, it could not be said that there was an enhancement of tax prejudicial to the interest of the assessee since, the permitted rate of compounded tax had not existed in the statute book at any point of time. It was held that the payment of tax by the assessee on the basis of the provisions of the Kerala Finance Bill, 2009 could only be viewed as one effected under mistake of law and hence, the enhanced tax consequent to the enactment of the Finance Act could be validly collected from the assessee. In this connection, I have to note that the said decision does not consider the issue as to the effe....