IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
M/S. Hotel Hillside - Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 22442 OF 2014
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Section 7, 7(ii)(a), (b), 5(2)- Finance Act, 2010 - Revenue recovery notice - Calculating turnover tax - Payment of tax at compounded rates - Ext.P10 revenue recovery notice was issued to petitioner in respect of differential amount demanded by first respondent - Aggrieved by this, petitioner has approached this Court – Method adopted by first respondent in calculating turnover tax in Ext.P8 order is illegal - Para 7.
Finding of the Court :
Assessing officer, while passing Ext.P8 order, has calculated turnover tax by working out turnover tax for 12 months proportionately, which is not possible as per Section 7(ii)(a) or (b) of KGST Act - Insofar as petitioner is concerned, assessing authority ought to have calculated tax payable under Section 7(ii)(a) of KGST Act, which is only possible method for calculation in case in hand – Court is of opinion that method adopted by first respondent in calculating turnover tax in Ext.P8 order is illegal and hence, Exts.P8, P9 and P10 are liable to be set aside.
Result: Writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, a partnership firm, is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, “the KGST Act”) on the rolls of the first respondent and is running a three star hotel situated in the panchayat area in Kozhikode district. It started business on 11.02.2010 during the assessment year 2009-10. While so, as per the Finance Act, 2010, Section 7 of the KGST Act was amended by including a new provision for compounding by three star hotels. It was stipulated that three star bar attached hotels in the areas other than Municipal Corporations will have the option to pay turnover tax on foreign liquor instead of paying turnover tax under Section 5(2) of the KGST Act @ 170% of the purchase value of such liquor or at 125% of the highest turnover tax payable as conceded in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for any of the previous consecutive three years, whichever is higher. While so, as per Ext.P2 application dated 30.04.2010, the petitioner applied for permission to pay tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act; and accordingly, tax was being paid for all the months of the year; and monthly returns filed along with payment of compounded tax for each month were accepted by the first respondent. The total tax thus paid is Rs.22,65,716/-, which is reflected in Ext.P4 Trading Account along with Form 50-A. While so, as per Ext.P5 order dated 25.01.2014, the petitioner was asked to pay differential turnover tax on liquor. The petitioner, though objected to the same, paid the said amount. Thereafter, as per Ext.P6 notice, the first respondent proposed to revise the assessment already made under the compounding scheme, which was reaffirmed by Ext.P5. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 objection to Ext.P6 notice, objecting to the proposal and the method of calculation adopted by the first respondent, stating that it was totally against the provisions of law. However, as per Ext.P8 order, the first respondent confirmed the proposal to make assessment, taking the average and multiplying the same into 12 for fixing up the yearly compounded tax; and thus, the total demand was arrived at Rs.2,36,757/-along with interest amounting to Rs.92,335/-. On receipt of Ext.P8, when a representative of the petitioner approached the first respondent, informing that no compounding order was issued to the petitioner intimating the calculation duly made in regard to the payment of tax, the first respondent handed over Ext.P9 proceedings dated 14.05.2010 to the petitioner's representative on 25.07.2014. Thereafter, Ext.P10 revenue recovery notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of the differential amount demanded by the first respondent. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.
2. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that as per the amendments made to Section 7 of the KGST Act, bar attached hotels of three star and above are liable to pay turnover tax at 10% on 170% of the purchase turnover of Indian Made Foreign Liquor or 125% of the highest turnover tax payable as conceded in the return or accounts of the turnover tax paid for any of the previous consecutive three years, whichever is higher. According to the first respondent, there is no mistake in the provisions applied and the amount is legitimately due to be paid by the assessee. It is further contended that since the compounding order was served on the petitioner by hand, there is no acknowledgment for serving the same; and pre-assessment notice also had been issued to the dealer before finalizing the proceedings. Therefore, according to the first respondent, there is no violation of principles of natural justice in issuing Ext.P8 order.
3. I have heard Sri.Firoz K.M., learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner started business on 11.02.2010 during the assessment year, 200
SupremeToday
Section 7 of KGST Act, which reads as payment of tax at compounded rates.
The main legal point established is that the assessing authority has the discretion to calculate tax at compounded rate under Section 7 based on the turnover of the previous consecutive three years, ....
The absence of formal acceptance of a compounding application does not negate an assessee's entitlement to a concessional tax rate when tax is paid under regular provisions.
Taxable turnover means turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay tax as determined after making such deductions from his total turnover and in such manner as may be prescribed.
Compounded tax collection allowed for first-time dealers under KVAT provisions.
Once a dealer opts for tax composition, they cannot revert to regular assessments within the same assessment year.
The court emphasized proper application of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act provisions regarding compounding assessments, mandating reevaluation where statutory guidelines were overlooked.
Dealers paying compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the KVAT Act are not liable to pay purchase tax under Section 6(2), as clarified by a 2017 amendment.
Point of law: compounding application is only an application filed for payment of tax at compounded rate in accordance with the statute and not at the rate prescribed by the party because the Act doe....
Dealers paying compounded tax under the KVAT Act are exempt from purchase tax under Section 6(2) for the specified goods.
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.