IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28748 of 2009(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. K.K.BUILDERS, PERAVOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY K.K.MOHANDAS, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. MR.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1 (WORKS CONTRACT), KANNUR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 28748 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Grievance of the petitioner is regarding fixation of compounding rate. According to the petitioner two industrial units engaged in granite crushing, distinctly situated within the district of Kannur, at a distance of about 30 kms apart, is wrongly reckoned together for the purpose of fixing the amount of tax payable under the compounding scheme. Contention of the petitioner is that since the two units are totally separate and distinct compounding permission ought to have been granted separately and the fixation of compounding rate treating both the crushing units together is illegal and improper. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is contended that the compounded tax formulation under Section 8 (b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) need be fixed based on the number and size of secondary machines along with W.P.(C)No. 28748 of 2009 -2- proportionate tax liability on primary crushers. The petitioner has one primary and two secondary crushers in one unit and one secondary crusher alone in another unit. The petitioner is having registration for all his businesses together and therefore he can be considered as a ‘dealer’ with respect to both the units. The compounding option under Section 8 (b) is provided with respect to a ‘dealer’ and going by the provisions in Section 8 (b) and explanations provided thereon, reckoning of all the machineries in both the units, for the purpose of fixation of the compounding rate, is perfectly justified. In fact a request of the petitioner in this regard has already been declined through Annexure R1 (a). 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had already submitted a request before the third respondent as evidenced from Ext.P7, for treating each place of business as separate units for the purpose of assessment under Section 20 (3) of the KVAT Act. Permission was sought for treating each place of business as separate units and for W.P.(C)No. 28748 of 2009 -3- making separate assessment for each such units. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has not so far taken any decision on the basis of Ext.P7. 4. Under the above circumstances the petitioner is limiting his relief to the extent of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7. I am of the opinion that a direction can be issued to the 3rd respondent for a time bound disposal of Ext.P7. 5. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of a judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/