SHAIJO M.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions of law arising in this revision are:

(2.) On facts, it has to be noticed that the assessee at the commencement of the year had one primary crusher and two secondary crushers. The assessee sought for compounding, which was granted at a total compounding fee of Rs.8,48,400/- by proceedings dated 29.06.2011. In the course of the year, the assessee filed another compounding application on 30.09.2012, wherein he sought compounding for a primary crusher and a cone crusher. The same was also allowed by proceedings dated 21.01.2012. Hence, from the two compounding applications filed, one has to understand that till 30.09.2012, the assessee's unit was carried on by one primary crusher and two secondary crushers. From 01.10.2012, with the addition of one primary crusher and one cone crusher, the assessee's unit should be understood as having been carried on with two primary crushers, two secondary crushers and one cone crusher.

(3.) The assessee insists that the facts are otherwise and the secondary crushers were discarded and no new primary crusher was installed. The assessee installed only one cone crusher. However, the applications indicate additions and not replacements. In fact, if the case was as the assessee submits, the assessee had a remedy by way of approaching the Assessing Officer (AO) for revision of the compounding application under Rule 11(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The assessee without doing so, filed an application for addition of one primary crusher and two cone crushers. The AO sought to assess the petitioner under the compounding scheme for two primary crushers, two secondary crushers and one cone crusher for the entire year. In first appeal, the AO's order was affirmed. In second appeal, the Tribunal reduced the compounding fee of one primary crusher and one cone crusher to the two quarters of the assessment year.