IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 6 of 2010() ----------------------- TA.35/2009 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- M/S.MOTHI MAHAL JEWELLERY, CHANGARAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR FOR R SMT.K.HYMAVATHY FOR R THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 7 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 6 & 7 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessment under compounded rate opted by the assessee under Section 7 of the KGST Act. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Muraleedharan Nair, counsel appearing for the respondents-assessees. 2. The assessments involved for both the assessees are for the year 2002-03. In the beginning of the financial year, the assessees made compounding application in Form No. 21 and the assessing officer accepted the same by issuing demand notice in Form No.22. Tax at compounded rate payable that was accepted by the assessees was at the rate of 120% of the tax payable for the previous year. However, by the Finance Act, 2002 which was published on 29.7.2002 the compounded rate was increased from 120% to 200%. 2 Respondents-assessees however continued to pay lower amount of tax at compounded rate, i.e, without paying revised rate under the amended provision until October,2002. However on 14.10.2002 respondents noticing increased liability under the compounding scheme applied for permission to withdraw compounded rate of payment, that is by opting for payment of tax on the actual turnover. Even though this was accepted by the assessing officer and assessments were completed based on the returns filed under Section 17(4) of the Act, later based on the decision of this Court in UDAYA TRADERS V. STO, (1995) 99 STC 41, which held that once compounding is opted by the assessee and accepted by the department, assessee has no escape from it, and withdrawal is not permissible, assessing officer rejected the assessees' applications and assessments were made under Section 19 of the Act demanding tax at the compounded rate which is the revised rate prescribed by the Finance Act 2002. 3. During hearing Government Pleader relied on the decision of one of us (CNR (J)) in PRAKASH JEWELLERY V. STATE OF KERALA, (2004) 12 KTR 543(Ker.), wherein the position canvassed 3 by the State was accepted by this Court and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment for the year 2002-03 at the compounded rate based on Finance Act, 2002. We see no reason to deviate from the view taken by the learned single Judge in the above referred decision. Following the said decision we allow the revisions by vacating the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the order of the first appellate authority confirming Section 19 assessment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk 4