IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 STRV.No. 107 of 2011 ( ) -------------------------- TA.182/2010 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM ----------- REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE : ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. BOBY JOHN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1 HOTEL ARACADIA REGENCY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.GEORGEKUTTY THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STRV.No. 107 of 2011 APPENDIX REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.10.2010 ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT DATED 7.12.2010 ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT.21.3.2011 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma *CR* C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ ---------------------------------------------------- STRevn. No. 107 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair , J We have heard the Government Pleader for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent was entitled to the compounding facility for payment of turn over tax on the sale of liquor initially granted, but later withdrawn. Admittedly, respondent was granted compounding facility to pay turn over tax treating the turn over for payment of TOT at 180% of the purchase turnover of liquor as provided under Section 7(i)(ii) (a) of the KGST Act. However, the Assessing Officer later noticed that the respondent had not completed 3 years of business prior to the year 2010-11, the years for which compounding was sought and so much so, they are not entitled for compounding facility. The Tribunal took the view that clause (a) of Section 7(i)(ii) applies to the respondents even though they had not completed three years business in STRevn. No. 107 of 2011 : 2 : the Bar prior to the year for which compounding is sought. 3. It is challenging this order of the Tribunal the State has filed this revision. After hearing both sides what we notice is that there is nothing to indicate in the section that three years continuous business prior to the year for which compounding sought is mandatory for applying for compounding. In other words, the view taken by the tribunal that clause (b) of Section 7(i)(ii) applies only in cases where the applicants have 3 years continuous business prior to the year in which compounding is applied for, and that it is not a mandatory requirement for granting the facility. We do not think we should interfere with the order of the Tribunal because the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the above section is a possible view, the benefit of which the dealer is entitled. We therefore dismiss STRV case filed by the State. Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (Judge) Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN (Judge) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge