State Of Kerala vs K A Jose, Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt Ltd on 12 October, 2022
section (2) etc, shall not be construed as still in force. The
argument of the Government, if accepted, the State's
jurisdiction to grant exemption to Sub-section (2) is also
accepted. The effect of the second notification is considered by
a learned Single Judge in Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer1,
and we are in respectful agreement with the conclusion of the
learned Single Judge in Hi-Tek Traders case. On the choice
available to the dealer, we notice that though the issuance of
the first notification was not pointed out before the Tribunal,
1
(2020) 74 GSTR 486 (Ker)
OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022,
36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022,
44/2022
-24-
the Tribunal, upon consideration of the statutory scheme, held
that the dealer has a choice. In our considered view, from the
above discussion, no infirmity is made out within the scope of
Section 63 of the KVAT Act. The order of remand by the Deputy
Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Tribunal are
confirmed. The Assessing Officer considers and decides the
relief prayed for by the dealer, by keeping in perspective the
notifications referred to above. Revisions fail. Dismissed. No
order as to Costs.