SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Lukose K.C. - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Tax Payer Services, Kannur North, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Kannur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 42535 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Harisankar V. Menon, Meera V. Menon, R. Sreejith, K. Krishna, Parvathy Menon.
For the Respondent: Smt. Jasmine M.M.- GP.

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, and the option to pay tax at compounded rate is governed by the provisions of Section 7.

Headnote:

Kerala General Sales Tax Act - Compounded Tax - Section 7

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a bar attached hotel proprietor, challenged the orders for compounding turnover tax for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24 under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Finding of the Court:

The court held 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, and the petitioner's contention regarding the exclusion of parcel sales from the turnover tax calculation was dismissed.

Issues: The issues involved the calculation of turnover tax at compounded rate under Section 7, the inclusion of parcel sales in the turnover, and the requirement for an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once an assessee opts for compounding payment of tax under Section 7, the payment of tax at compounded rate is governed by the provisions of Section 7, and the assessing authority has the discretion to calculate tax based on the turnover of the previous consecutive three years.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no substance in the petitioner's contentions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Jasmine M.M., learned Government Pleader, for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed making a challenge to the orders in Exts.P8 and P9 issued by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“Act”, for short) for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, whereby the petitioner's applications for compounding of turnover tax for the said years have been decided and the tax liability of Rs.1,19,96,211/- and Rs.1,49,95,264/-, respectively, have been calculated under the compounding scheme as provided under Section 7 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

3. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.KBC Green Park Hotel, Edat, Payyannur, Kannur District, a bar attached hotel. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Act. Under Section 5(2) of the Act, turnover tax @ 10% is required to be paid by a bar attached hotel on the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.

4. Section 7 of the Act provides for payment of tax at compounded rate, which reads as under :

“7. Payment of tax at compounded rates: –

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section 5, any bar attached hotel, not being a star hotel of and above four star hotel, heritage hotel or club, may, at its option, instead of paying turnover tax on foreign liquor in accordance with the said subsection, pay turnover tax on the turnover of foreign liquor calculated at the rates in clauses (a) or (b) of items (i) and (ii), respectively, whichever is higher,-

(i) in respect of a bar attached hotel of and below two star,

(a) at one hundred and forty per cent of the purchase value of such liquor, in the case of those situated within the area of a municipal corporation or a municipal council or a cantonment, and at one hundred and thirty five per cent of the purchase value of such liquor, in the case of those situated in any other place; or

(b) at one hundred and fifteen per cent of the highest turnover tax payable by it as conceded in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for any of the previous consecutive three years; and

(ii) in respect of a bar attached hotel of three stars,

(a) at one hundred and eighty per cent of the purchase value of such liquor, in the case of those situated within the area of a municipal corporation or a municipal council or a cantonment, and at one hundred and seventy per cent of the purchase value of such liquor, in the case of those situated in any other place; or

(b) at one hundred and twenty five per cent of the highest turnover tax payable by it as conceded in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for any of the previous consecutive three years.”

5. Rule 30 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (“Rules”, for short) provides that every dealer eligible to pay turnover tax at compounded rate under Section 7, may apply to the assessing authority for permission to pay turnover tax at the rates specified therein in Form-21 on or before 30th April of the year to which the option relates to. It also provides that if the application is in order, the assessing authority shall grant permission in Form-22 and if the application filed is not in order, the assessing authority shall reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing, after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard. For ready reference, Rule 30 of the Rules is extracted hereunder :

“30. Payment of tax at compounded rates:- (1) Every dealer eligible to pay turnover tax at compounded rate under section 7, who desires to exercise the option provided for under the said section may apply to the assessing authority concerned for permission to pay turnover tax at the rates specified therein in Form No.21 on or before the 30th day of April of the year to which the option relates or along with the application for registration under the Act, whichever is later.

Provided that the assessing authorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top