'C.R.'

Ramachandran Nair, J:

The question raised in the revision filed by the assessee is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner issued under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the K.G.S.T.Act') wherein he directed revision of assessee's assessment for the year 200304 at the compounded rate as provided under Section 7(1)(a) of the K.G.S.T.Act by taking into account the turnover of all the branches of the assessee in Kerala.

2. We have heard Advocate Sri.Harisankar. V.Menon appearing for the revision petitioner and the Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. The facts leading to the controversy are the following:-

The assessee is engaged in the business of gold jewellery. It has it's head office at Ernakulam and three branches in the State at Kottayam, Angamaly and Thodupuzha. The assessee holds single registration under the K.G.S.T.Act with branch certificate for each of the three branches. During the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee made an application before the assessing officer in Form No.21 for payment of tax at compounded rate as provided under Section 7(1)(a) of the K.G.S.T.Act for two branches located at Kottayam and Angamaly. Even though the scheme for payment of tax under compounding rate under Section 7(1)(a) is in lieu of tax payable under Section 5(1) by the dealer for his total turnover which would include turnover of head office and all branches in the State, the assessing officer, without noticing the statutory scheme, ordered the assessee to pay tax under the compounding scheme only for the two branches applied for by them. Approval for payment of tax under Section 7(1)(a) was granted by the assessing officer by issuing Form No.21A based on which assessee started remitting tax. Since the compounding scheme for payment of tax was granted only for two branches, the assessee started filing regular returns and remitting tax thereon for the business carried on in the head office and another branch. After the end of the year, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer under Section 17 (3) of the K.G.S.T.Act wherein tax is computed under the compounding scheme for two branches and tax is assessed under Section 5(1) for the head office and another branch based on the turnover determined by him, which is in partial modification of turnover returned by the assessee. The assessment was scrutinised by the Deputy Commissioner and on scrutiny of the assessment by the Deputy Commissioner, he noticed that the assessment is not in accordance with the charging provisions of Sections 5(1) and 7(1)(a) of the Act inasmuch as, there is no provision for compounding of part of the turnover and payment of tax for the balance turnover. He, therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 35 and ordered revision of assessment by directing assessment under Section 7(1)(a) in terms of the request made by the assessee and accepted by the officer, but by including the business of all Branches of the assessee in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the K.G.S.T.Act.

4. The assessee filed appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner issued under Section 35 contending that the order is time barred and that the regular assessment completed by the assessing officer is permissible under the provisions of the Act and Rules. On the question of limitation, the contention of the assessee was that the mistake, if any, is in the permission granted by the officer on application filed by the assessee for compounding under Rule 30 of the K.G.S.T.Rules and so much so, the revision, if any, under Section 35 should have been on the approval granted by the officer for compounding, i.e., with reference to the compounding order in Form No.21A and demand in Form No.22, for payment at compounded rate, with reference to which the matter was time barred. However, the Tribunal found that the order revised by the Deputy Commissioner was