IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.V. BHATTI, BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JJ.
The Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Chungath Jewellery – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 2312, 2316, 2334, 2337, 2338, 2347, 2355, 2362, 2363, 2365, 2384, 2391, 2438 of 2015, 9177, 13336 of 2012
Decided On : 06-08-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 196(5), 265 - Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenues Act 1985 - Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 8(f) - Assessment to pay balance tax - quashed all impugned orders/demand notices was legally unsustainable - compounded tax for dealers in ornaments or articles of gold, or other metals were retrospectively amended for dealers raised a challenge against collection of differential tax - Several writ petitions were filed before Court - learned Single Judge allowed all writ petitions after concluding that differential tax attempted to be collected from writ petitioners for the assessment was legally unsustainable and accordingly quashed all impugned orders/demand notices - Department has come up in these appeals contending that retroactive operation of compounded rate of tax was within scope of Government's authority and consequential collection of differential tax was legally valid.
Finding of the Court:
Court in decision in State of Kerala v. M/s. Desire Diamond Jewellery that, a compounding application is only an application filed for payment of tax at compounded rate in accordance with statute and not at rate prescribed by party because Act does not visualise any such compounding on parties own terms - Contention raised therein was that unit of assessment under compounded regime of tax being a full assessment year commencing from entire exercise of payment of compounded tax having been completed by in absence of any retrospective operation of the new rate of tax either expressly or by necessary intendment, new rate could not have been applied for an exercise that was already completed - Court and remanded same for a de novo consideration - Court was specifically mentioned in said judgment that observations are made only for purpose of remitting case back to Division Bench and no opinion on the merits have been made in said case - Dealers and demand notices were issued in valid exercise of power.
Result: writ Petitions shall stand dismissed
JUDGMENT :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
1. When the compounded tax for dealers in ornaments or articles of gold, or other metals were retrospectively amended for the year 2011-12, the dealers raised a challenge against the collection of differential tax. Several writ petitions were filed before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed all the writ petitions after concluding that the differential tax attempted to be collected from the writ petitioners for the assessment year 2011-12 was legally unsustainable and accordingly quashed all the impugned orders/demand notices. The department has come up in these appeals contending that the retroactive operation of the compounded rate of tax was within the scope of the Government’s authority and the consequential collection of differential tax was legally valid.
2. This batch consists of 13 writ appeals and two writ petitions. W.A. No. 2312/2015 is treated as the main appeal. The questions arising for consideration are common and hence we heard all the writ appeals and the writ petitions together. Since the circumstances are similar in all these cases, we confine the factual narrative that too, briefly, to the circumstances pleaded in the leading case.
3. The writ petition was preferred when the dealer was directed to pay the balance tax due under the newly introduced compounded rate of tax. It was contended that the compounded tax being in the nature of a contract, the Government was estopped from demanding compounded tax at a higher rate after Ext.P1 sanction was granted by the assessing officer to pay tax under the compounded scheme, that too in instalments.
4. Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘the KVAT Act’) provides for compounded tax for dealers in ornaments and articles of gold, etc. On 24-02-2011 a finance bill was presented before the 12th Kerala Legislative Assembly, as Bill No. 426 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Bill’). The Bill proposed a revision of the existing rates for compounded tax under section 8(f) of the KVAT Act from 01-04-2011. Even though the Bill was not passed by the legislative assembly, due to statutory prescriptions and declarations made in the Bill, the tax implications under the First Bill came into effect from the proposed date i.e. 01-04-2011. The year 2011 was the year of elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The 12th Kerala Legislative Assembly was therefore dissolved on 14-05-2011 and a new Government took charge. Thereafter the new Government brought a fresh Finance Bill on 19.07.2011 as Bill No. 20 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Bill’) of the 13th Kerala Legislative Assembly. The second bill was passed on 08-11-2011 as Kerala Finance Act 16 of 2011, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 16 of 2011’).
5. The 1st respondent is a dealer in ornaments and articles of gold. 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as the dealer) had opted to pay tax at compounded rates from the year 2009-10 onwards. The dealer was permitted by Ext.P1 order of the assessing authority to pay tax at the compounded rate prevalent as on 01-04-2011 for the year 2011-12 on the basis of the rates prescribed under the First Bill. However, after the coming into force of the amended provisions, the assessing officer demanded the differential tax allegedly due from the dealer on the basis of the amended provisions. The demand was challenged by the dealer in the writ petition. A relief of declaration was sought for declaring that the provisions of the Second Bill which resulted in Finance Act 16 of 2011 shall not affect the vested rights accrued to the dealer on account of the order permitting it to pay tax at compounded rates on the basis of the First Bill.
6. By the judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge held that once the assessee opts to pay tax at compounded rates and the said option was accepted, there came into existen
Bhima Jewellery vs. Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)
M/s. J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Another
M/s. Raghubar Dayal Jai Parkash and Others vs. Union of India and Another
Mt. Jadao Bahuji vs. The Municipal Committee, Khandwa and Another
State of Karnataka and Others vs. Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.