Point of law : VAT - Assessments are already been completed, hence Section 25AA of the Act cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.

ORDER :

BASANT BALAJI, J.

The revision petitioner is a works contractor engaged in the businesses of villas and flats challenges the order of the respondent dated 24.07.2017, whereby his revision was dismissed confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The petitioner was paying tax at compounded rate under Section 8 of the Act based on Annexure-I and Annexure-I(a) permissions granted by the assessing authority.

3. According to the petitioner, he has been filing returns based on the permissions granted to him, but for the returns filed for the year 2013-14, it was conceded by the petitioner that in the returns filed the contract amount shown had been lower than the actual contract amount received by the petitioner, which was an omission occurred on the part of their accountant and though the chartered accountant detected the same while returning the audited statement, the petitioner requested for revision of return by the assessing authority, but the assessing authority turned-out the same and since compounding was allowed under section 8(a) of the act and he is liable to pay tax at the compounded rate for the whole year.

4. The Intelligence Officer, Squad-I, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted an inspection at the place of business of the petitioner and during the course of inspection, certain receipts were recovered for further verification and the petitioner was directed to produce the books of accounts for verification. Though several opportunities were given to the petitioner for production of books, the petitioner did not avail of the same and therefore the Intelligence Officer was constrained to process the crime file relying on the data gathered at the time of inspection with reference to the self assessment returns filed by the petitioner and found that there has been huge volume of suppression of contract receipts. The Intelligence Officer found that there was no nexus between the turnover declared before the assessing authority and that was found from the records recovered from the place of business during inspection. The suppressed turnover detected by the Intelligence Officer for the year 2013-2014 was to the tune of Rs.16,07,01,482/-. Thereafter, proceedings were initialed under Section 67(1) of the Act and the petitioner was given opportunity to file objections and also an opportunity for hearing. Thereafter Annexure-V penalty order was passed imposing penalty of Rs.3,49,52,580/-as per order dated 29.09.2014. On 26.02.2016, the petitioner filed Form No.49. In the said form, the petitioner declared the ongoing projects. Challenging Annexure-V penalty order, the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The First Revisional Authority modified the penalty order to the extent of not granting exemption with regard to the land value and the assessing authority was directed to complete the proceedings after giving opportunity to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed 2nd revision before the respondent herein. The Commissioner after going through the averments in the revision petition as well as hearing the petitioner, dismissed the same. Challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 24.07.2017 this O.T.Revision is filed by the petitioner.

6. Heard Sri.S.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent.

7. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, since the petitioner has been granted compounding permission for the whole year, he should be allowed to pay tax at the compounded rate under Section 8 of the Act, even for the difference in the contract amount which was found out by the Intelligence Officer and proceedings under Section 6