V K SHAJAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner runs a metal crusher unit, and is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act on the files of the 1st respondent. For the assessment year 2016-2017, the petitioner opted to pay tax on compounded basis and towards this end, he filed Ext. P1 application seeking to exercise his option to pay tax on compounded basis in terms of Section 8(b) of the KVAT Act.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that no orders were passed by the respondents on Ext. P1 application submitted by him and in the meanwhile, the petitioner, on the assumption that his application for compounding was not accepted, continued to pay tax on regular basis based on the turnover that was returned by him before the authorities. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner, by Ext. P2 communication dated 9-2-2017, wrote to the respondents informing them that he was formally cancelling his application for payment of tax on compounded basis for the assessment year 2016-2017.

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner states that notwithstanding the issuance of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner was served with Ext. P3 notice demanding differential tax for the period from April, 2016 to February, 2017. The notice indicated that the respondents were proceeding against the petitioner on the basis that he had opted for payment of tax on compounded basis. Although the petitioner, on receipt of Ext. P3 notice, wrote to the respondents indicating that since the compounding application had not been accepted by the respondents, he was under no liability to pay tax on compounded basis, the said stand of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents, who issued Ext. P5 notice directing the petitioner to remit the differential compounded tax for the assessment year 2016-2017 immediately on receipt of the notice.