AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort). All these revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal- had confirmed the order of the first appellate authority, passed in favour of the assessee. The State is in revision against the said order. 2. The assessee had challenged the revised assessments passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, with respect to different years. The permission granted to the assessee for payment of. tax at the compounded rate as provided under Section Was found to be illegal and unsustainable, in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.C. Sebastian v. State of Kerala [(2008) 16 KTR 117 (Kern in which this Court had relied upon a judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings under Section 25 cannot be initiated without havihg the order under Section 8 cancelled, by following the procedure contemplated under Section 56 of the KVAT Act. The Tribunal also found that the revised assessments with respect to the years 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 are time barred, because the proceedings were initiated after expiry of the period of five years stipulated. 5. While considering the revision petitions, wenotice that -the Tribunal *had placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Muhammed Ali 25 KTR 73 (Kern, wherein it was held that an order permitting compounding Will remain in force. until it is cancelled in appropriate proceedings; and therefore the assessment made under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the compounded scheme, once accepted .by the Assessing Officer, amounts to a contract between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. But, on the facts of the said case, permission granted for payment. of tax at the compounded rate was already revised by the Deputy Commissioner in exercising pbwer vested under Section 35 of the KGST Act. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee had contended that, the view taken the Division Bench in George Thomas (S.T. Rev. No.-92 of 2011) is not correct, mainly because it had relied on the decision in. Joy Alukkas Traders (supra), which is a case where the permission for compounding was in fact cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the revisional power. Secondly it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escind from its liability. It is held further that, the composition of tax is nothing but an alternative route for assessment regulated by the term-g of a contract between the assessee and the Assessing Authority to arrive at the same destination. Therefore the dealer who had voluntarily and with full knowledge of the features of the alternate method of taxation has opted to be governed by it, a fortiori cannot in the lean season, claim for his assessment to be made under the regular assessment in the same assessment year. 9. 'It is also pointed out that, the- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Kerala and another [(2014) 71 VST 110 (SC)) has reiterated that, when the dealer is given an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents advanced, it is evident that there exists divergent views among the legal precedents. In George Thomas (supra) relying on Joy Alukkas Traders (supra) it is held that the powers vested under Section 19 (1) & 35 of the KGST Act (which are in pari materia with Section 25 and 56 of the KVAT Act) are one and same in nature. But considering the rulings cited on behalf of the assessee, including Koothattukulam Liquors (supra), Bhima Jewellers (supra) and other judgments, there is a reiteration of the legal principle that the option for compounding once accepted creates. Concluded contract which cannot be rescinded by one. of the parties or annulled through a re-opening of the assessment concluded. 12. While referring to relevant provisions,....