MATHRUKA RELATORS [P] LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is stated to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenges Exts.P2 and P6 orders, both issued by the competent Assessing Authority.

(2.) The constitutive issue that was placed before the Assessing Authority for its consideration was whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of compounded rates of tax for the year 2013-12014. But, the view taken by the Assessing Authority was that, since the petitioner had not paid tax under Section 6(2) of the Act, eventhough he was paying tax under Section 8 of the Act, the benefit of compounding cannot be offered to him and he therefore, issued Ext.P2 rejecting this request made by the petitioner. It appears that, against this order, the petitioner filed application for rectification before the 1st respondent, which finally concluded in Ext.P6 order, wherein again the same stand was taken by the said Authority, thus leading to rejection of the rectification application also.

(3.) The specific contention of the petitioner, as is voiced by its learned counsel Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, is that the Act was amended with effect from 1.4.2008 consequent to which the rigour of having to pay tax under Section 6(2) of the Act was taken away in the case of an assessee who pays tax under Section 8 thereof. According to the learned counsel, even though this was specifically brought to the attention of the assessing authority and though interestingly, he has referred to this contention in Ext.P6 order, he has still chosen to deny the benefit of compounding to the petitioner, holding that though the Act may have been amened, since Rule 11(6) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 has not been amended, the petitioner is liable to make payment of the tax under Section 6(2) of the Act. He, therefore, prays that this order be set aside and the competent Authority be directed to grant the benefit of compounding to the petitioner.