2016 (10) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso a challenge against Ext.P8 series of notices issued to the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act to the extent they propose completion of the assessment in relation to the petitioner on best judgment basis. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is two fold. On the one hand, he would point out that the cancellation of the permission to pay tax on compounded basis was effected solely for the reason that the petitioner had not paid a portion of the admitted tax due under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act, after having compounded the offence of non payment of that tax during the relevant assessment years in terms of Section 74 of the KVAT Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 22(10) of the KVAT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that in respect of the amounts towards purchase tax that had to be paid by the petitioner in respect of certain purchases effected by him during the assessment years in question, the petitioner had compounded the offence of non payment of tax under Section 6(2) departmentally under section 74 of the KVAT Act. Although these amounts are not exorbitant, and the petitioner had paid the purchase tax in respect of the majority of the transaction, the fact remains that the entire purchase tax liability under Section 6(2) was not initially discharged by the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner had compounded the offence departmental....