IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35144 of 2010(P)
1. M/S. KINATTUKARA METAL CRUSHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 35144 OF 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5 order issued by the first respondent, rejecting
request made by the petitioner to revise the compounding
order, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The
petitioner had submitted application for revision of the
compounding permission on the basis that the firm had
erected one primary and one secondary machines
additionally. According to the petitioner the revised
permission has to be granted to remit tax at the
compound rate for the periods after installation of
machineries, which is on 01.11.2009. The first
respondent on the basis of inspections conducted had
arrived at a conclusion that the claim raised by the
petitioner was not factually correct. Further the first
respondent observed that, once the permission is granted
under Section 8 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
2
WP(C) No. 35144/2010
(KVAT Act) he has no power to revise the same.
2. According to the petitioner they were using the
machineries in question only from 01.11.2009 onwards and
as such the liability with respect to the newly added
machineries can only be for the period from 01.11.2009 to
31.03.2010. Therefore the revision as requested ought to
have been allowed, is the contention.
3. Learned Government Pleader points out a Division
Bench decision of this Court in M/s.Alukkas Jewellery Vs.
The State of Kerala and another [2006 (2) KLJ 478]
wherein, interpreting the identical provisions, this Court
held that permission for compounding is allowed fixing the
tax payable for the whole year and not for a portion.
Further in the decision in Falcon Rock Products Vs.
Sales Tax Officer, [2000 (2) KLT 284] it is held that
notwithstanding the fact that any assessee had effected
commercial production only for a portion of the assessment
year, compounding could not be allowed for such particular
3
WP(C) No. 35144/2010
portion, since tax payable under the relevant provision is
not ordered on the turnover, but only on the capacity of the
machinery.
4. In view of the dictum laid in the above said
decisions, I am of the view that the order impugned does
not call for any interference.
Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc