TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In W.P.(C) 486 of 2016, the petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that Exhibit P6 application for withdrawal of compounding has not been allowed. The petitioner relies on the decision reported in M/s.A.V.J. Emporium v. Assistant Commissioner & Another [(2008) 16 KTR 441 (Ker)]. 2. At the beginning of the assessment year 2015-2016, the Managing Partner, who represents the petitioner firm and he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."] for the months May to August 2016. The petitioner's contention is that since the compounding has not been accepted and an order passed, the petitioner cannot be asked to continue compounding and the petitioner is entitled to resile from the compounding scheme, which, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is a contract between parties which would be concluded only on an order being issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the dealer was entitled to resile from the compounding scheme. In the said case there was no concluded contract for reason of the permission having not been granted till the application for withdrawing from the compounding was filed. 5. In the present case, evidently the compounding application was allowed by the Department on 17.05.2016. The application for withdrawal was made on 22.07.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings at Exhibit P13 series, which were issued on the reasoning that the petitioner had purposefully evaded payment of tax. The petitioner was issued with notice of penalty for reason of the petitioner having not paid the compounded tax. On receipt of notice of penalty, the petitioner had paid the tax under Section 6 and had requested the Assessing Officer to consider the application filed for ....