M/S. Cochin Blue Metal Industries (P) ... vs The Intelligence Officer on 29 April, 2013
6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Srikumar
for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents. Learned Senior Counsel would vehemently canvass
for the proposition that, in the instant case, the compounding
W.P.(C).No.18120 of 2015 7
proposal put forth on behalf of the petitioner, subject to certain
stipulations, had been accepted by the 1st respondent and
accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to reap the benefits that
flowed from a declaration, of the legal position with regard to
liability for penalty, in the judgment dated 06.03.2015 rendered in
WP (C) No. 2873/2014 and connected cases. In the alternative, he
would submit that the offence itself was not compounded in the
absence of payment of the balance tax amounts by the petitioner.
To substantiate his contentions, he would place reliance on the
decisions in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 328],
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence) v.
N.N.Jariwala [1992 (86) VST 229 (Kar)] and State of
Karnataka v. Veerchand [1992 (87) VST 138 (Kar-FB)]. It is
also contended that, even if it is assumed that the offence was
compounded in terms of S.74 of the KVAT Act, in as much as it was
not in dispute that the provisions of the proviso to S. 74 (1)(a) was
attracted in the instant case, the maximum compounding fee that
could have been collected from the petitioner in terms of the
statute was only Rs. 2 Lakhs.