Once a dealer opts for tax composition, they cannot revert to regular assessments within the same assessment year.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Commr. (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Koothattukulam Liquor, Tax Revision Case No. 70 of 1997, order dated 25-2-2003 (Ker) dated 25-2-2003.

2. The assessee is a dealer in arrack. We are concerned with Assessment Year 1993-1994. The regular rate of tax on the sale of arrack is 12.5%. In the normal course, the sale of arrack would attract the charging provisions, namely, S.5(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") and the regular assessments would be made by the assessing authority by applying the principles as envisaged under S.17 of the Act.

3. S.7 was introduced in the Act w.e.f. 1-4-1992. S.7 of the Act provides for payment of tax at compounded rates. Admittedly, in the beginning of the excise year, the assessee had filed an application in Form 21 before the assessing authority, dated 24-5-1993, inter alia requesting the assessing authority to facilitate it to pay the tax under the Act at the compounded rates. This application of the assessee was allowed by the assessing authority by an order, dated 28-6-1993 and accordingly Form 21 - A was issued to the assessee.

4. The assessee continued with its business activities from the beginning of the excise year till 15-8-1993. On 19-8-1993, the assessee made an application before the assessing authority inter alia informing them that it has closed its business for multifarious reasons and, therefore, the tax should be assessed as envisaged under S.5(1) read with S.17 of the Act. The said request of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had carried the matter before the first appellate authority, namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam, who by his order dated 5-12-1994 dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the orders of the assessing authority.

5. Being dissatisfied with the orders so passed by the first appellate authority, the assessee had carried the matter by way of second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 32 of 1995. The Tribunal by its order dated 24-2-1995 had allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal had filed the tax revision case before the Division Bench of the High Court in TRC No. 70 of 1997. The High Court by order dated 25-2-2003, Commr. (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Koothattukulam Liquor, Tax Revision Case No. 70 of 1997. order dated 25-2-2003 (Ker) following their earlier order in Udaya Traders v. STO, 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 327 : 1995 (99) STC 41 has allowed the Revenue's revision and thereby set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal. It is the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the High Court which is the subject - matter of this civil appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

7. In order to answer the issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant we need to notice S.7, S.7(14), Form 21 and Form 21 - A of the Act and R.30 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963.

8. S.7 of the Act is the charging section which provides for payment of tax at compounded rates. The sub-section (1) is extracted omitting what is not relevant for the purpose of this case. Sub-section (1) read as under:
"7. Payment of tax at compounded rate. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of S.5 -
[(A)xx][(a) any dealer in gold or silver ornaments or wares, may, at his option instead of paying tax in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section, pay tax at one hun