TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The petitioner was paying tax at compounded rate under Section 8 of the Act based on Annexure-I and Annexure-I(a) permissions granted by the assessing authority. 3. According to the petitioner, he has been filing returns based on the permissions granted to him, but for the returns filed for the year 2013-14, it was conceded by the petitioner that in the returns filed the contract amount shown had been lower than the actual contract amount received by the petitioner, which was an omission occurred on the part of their accountant and though the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....objections and also an opportunity for hearing. Thereafter Annexure-V penalty order was passed imposing penalty of Rs.3,49,52,580/- as per order dated 29.09.2014. On 26.02.2016, the petitioner filed Form No.49. In the said form, the petitioner declared the ongoing projects. Challenging Annexure-V penalty order, the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The First Revisional Authority modified the penalty order to the extent of not granting exemption with regard to the land value and the assessing authority was directed to complete the proceedings after giving opportunity to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the petitioner regarding Section 25AA is that, Section 25AA was inserted by Act 5 of 2019 with effect from 01.04.2019 and it has retrospective effect since the 'KVAT Act' has ceased its operation by the introduction of 'GST Act' and thus he is entitled to invoke the said provision of law. 9. The Senior Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that, the orders of the Revisional Authorities do not warrant any interference as they are passed taking into consideration of the suppression made by the petitioner. Eventhough he was given the option of compounding under Section 8 and availed compounding rate of tax, he suppressed details of certain ongoing projects and evaded tax. The realisation to pay tax is only on ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctual contract amount received by the petitioner. But according to him, it was an omission on the part of their accountant. It is also an admitted fact that an inspection was conducted on the premises of the petitioner on 09.05.2014 and from the inspection it was found that the petitioner has suppressed certain receipts and since the petitioner could not produce the Books of Account to substantiate the same and penalty order was imposed on 29.09.2014. On imposition of the penalty order, the petitioner filed Form 49 disclosing the ongoing projects undertaken by the petitioner. The said declaration was made by the petitioner on 26.02.2006, i.e., much after the penalty order dated 29.09.2014, hence the petitioner cannot content that it was an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m did not intends so. Every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show intention of the legislature otherwise it is deemed to be prospective only. The Act 5 of 2019 does not in any way give retrospective effect. A Division Bench of this Court had in earlier occasion considered the same issue in O.T.Revision No.185 of 2016, in which one of us (S.V.Bhatti, J.) was a member and held as follows: "The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that on account of the amendment introduced by the legislature as per Section 25AA of the Act, the addition of turnover must be limited to 50%. A reading of....