M.S. DIVAKARAN (DIRECTOR) Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner company is a registered dealer on the rolls of Commercial Tax officer, Manjeri, and engaged in the manufacture of gold ornaments. Pursuant to penalty proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner approached the respondents and compounded the offence by remitting a compounding fee of Rs. 2,91,000/-. In W.P.(C).No.13388 of 2016, it is the case of the petitioner that the compounding fee was paid on an erroneous legal advise obtained by the petitioner and the actual compounding fee payable was only Rs. 10,000/-. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass an order in Ext.P8 rectification application preferred by the petitioner, seeking a rectification of the compounding fee payable by him in respect of the offence that he had compounded. In W.P. (C).No.33399 of 2017, the petitioner impugns Ext.P6 preassessment notice issued by the 3rd respondent therein, on the ground that, Ext.P6 pre-assessment notice is based entirely on the compounding, by the petitioner, of the offence alleged against him. It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the compounding proceedings itself have been challenged in W.P.(C).No.13388 of 2016, Ext.P6 notice issued to him under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') ought not be permitted to proceed for adjudication.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.