2020 (5) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r payment of turnover tax for foreign liquor as per the compounding scheme provided under Section 7 of the KGST Act. The compounding option was accepted and the assessing authority issued necessary permission for remittance of compounded tax, as evident from Exts. P1, P1(a), P2, P2(a), P3 and P3(a). The petitioner acted in terms of the permission and paid the tax for the three years. Later, the assessment for the year 2007-08 was revised on the basis of suppression unearthed by the Intelligence Officer and the turnover for the year 2007-08 was re-fixed at Rs. 1,28,54,310/- with a tax liability of Rs. 12,85,431/-. The tax liability was thereafter revised as Rs. 12,02,037/- in terms of the direction by the appellate authority. Based on the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the compounded liability. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.   3. The singular contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had committed a fundamental error in adopting the revised assessed tax of the year 2007-08 as the basis for revising the assessment and refixing the compounded tax liability for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. In support of this contention, attention is drawn to Section 7(b) of the KGST Act and reliance is placed on the decisions in Sicilia Hotel Pvt. Ltd (Supra), and Kalyan Tourist Home v. State of Kerala (2017 (2) KLT 761). 4. Opposing the contentions, the learned Government Pleader would submit that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand was for remittance of the differential amount of compounded tax payable and not on the basis of any assessment de novo. Hence, the decision in Kalyan Tourist Home (Supra) does not in any manner support the petitioner's contention. 6. The decision in M/s.Hotel Breezeland Ltd (Supra) was rendered by the Division Bench after considering a batch of writ appeals and a writ petition. The writ petition was referred to the Bench, on a learned Single Judge finding that another Single Bench had rendered a judgment without considering certain Division Bench judgments on the issue. After elaborate consideration of the relevant provisions and the precedents, the Division Bench encapsulated its opinion in the following words; "22. The modi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly prior, three consecutive years. The proceedings in the prior year and in the subject years, were initiated within the limitation period. 24. We then notice the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that S.43 is the only enabling provision by which the AO could rectify the mistakes. S.43 specifically speaks of an error apparent on the face of the record, which we are afraid is not a ground, to interfere with the computation arrived at in the commencement of an year, based on a compounding provision. Especially when the revision of provisional computation arises, on a subsequent assessment made, for a previous year, which enhances the tax liability of the assessee in any of the three prior years. Even under clause (a) of S.7, the clos....