TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or The Petitioners : Sri. V. Devananda Narasimham For The Respondent : Sri. Shamsudheen V. K JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P10 and P11 assessment orders passed against the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act) for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 respectively. The petitioner, who is an assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round that, based on material received from the mining and Geology Department, which indicated that a secondary crusher operated using a motor with a power greater than 30 HP would normally fall under size III and not size II, the declaration submitted by the petitioner was erroneous, and consequently, one of the secondary machines, declared as size II, would have to be treated as size III for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ize II as contended by the petitioner. On a perusal of the relevant statutory provisions, however, I find that, as per the statutory scheme of payment of compounded tax under Section 8 (f), the tax payable is based on the production capacity of the machine, which in turn is determined by the jaw size of the crushing machine concerned. The capacity of the machine, based on the power of the motor af....