Kerala High Court
M.D. Baby vs The Commercial Tax Officer-I on 6 October, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017/4TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 853 of 2011 (F)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
M.D. BABY, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. DAVID, MANAGING PARTNER,, M/S. B.P. ASSOCIATES,
MADAPPILLIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.C.A.ANOOP
SRI.JIBU P THOMAS
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
RESPONDENT:
-----------
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I,
OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680 582.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI GOVINDAN C.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 853 of 2011 (F)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
--------------------
P1; TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY AS
PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT.
P2; TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED FOR THE QUARTER 1.7.2010
TO 30.9.2010.
P3; TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WPC NO 21465 OF 2010 DATED 6/10/2010.
P4; TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING
EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
DATED 6.12.2010.
P5; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO TIN 32081379592/2010-11 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2010.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.853 of 2011
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a registered firm engaged in operation of a crusher unit. He compounded the liability under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act in terms of Section 8(b) of the Act and tax was paid upto the quarter ending on 30.09.2010, for the financial year 2010-2011. The petitioner's case is that the operation of the crusher unit was stayed by this Court on 06.10.2010 and thereafter there was no commercial production or sale. Therefore, the petitioner requested for exemption from tax for the subsequent quarters till the commercial production and sale is restarted. The said request was rejected.
2. In fact the issue is covered against the petitioner in the light of the judgment in Raju Jacob vs. Sales Tax Officer (2006 (1) KLT 788). It was held therein that once assessee had opted payment of tax by compounding and received the demand W.P.(C) No.853/2011 2 notice, cannot withdraw the option subsequently.
Therefore, the petitioner's request for exemption from tax for the subsequent quarters cannot be accepted. The writ petition must fail.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp