(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 proceedings, issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. By the said order, the petitioner was allowed to compound an offence on payment of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of compounding fee, and a tax amount quantified at Rs. 8,36,070/-. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, while he had chosen to compound the offence, of suppression of details regarding the works for which he had opted for compounding, the respondents erred in adopting the rate of tax of 14.5%, in respect of those works that were not declared in the compounding application, while passing the impugned order. According to the petitioner, once he had chosen to pay tax on compounded basis, in respect of all works that he had undertaken for the year, even without making a declaration with regard to the said works, the rate of tax adopted could not have been more than 3% for the year in question.
(2.) The learned Government Pleader would rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Silver Line Villas & Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2017(2)KLT 770] to contend that, once the assessee makes an application for permission to pay tax at compounded rates for a particular works contract, and permission is granted with respect to that particular contract, it would only mean that all the individual components of such works contract would be included in such permission, and that it would not be then incumbent upon the assessee to make separate applications with respect to individual components of such works contract. The decision is relied upon to contend that, inasmuch as in the instant case, the assessee had not declared the various contracts for which he was opting to pay tax on compounded basis, he could not obtain the benefit of compounding, in respect of those works which he had not declared before the department.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.