Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.34 seconds)Section 74 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
The Finance Act, 2018
M. Pentiah And Others vs Muddala Veeramallappa And Others on 7 November, 1960
7. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader would defend
W.P.(C).No.18120 of 2015 8
Ext.P8 order of compounding passed by the 1st respondent and
maintain that, since the petitioner had chosen to compound the
offence and thereby claim immunity from prosecution under the
Act, he could not subsequently turn around and avail the benefit of
the judgment that held that no penalty could be imposed in respect
of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. He would also
contend that the provisions of the proviso to S. 74 (1)(a) have to be
interpreted in the light of the main provisions of S. 74 (1)(a), and
when so interpreted, it is obvious that the figure of Rs. 2 Lakhs
specified therein, is a mistake and the compounding fee ought to be
taken as Rs. 8 Lakhs, as in the main provision of S. 74 (1)(a) of the
Act. He places reliance on the decisions in, M.Pentiah and Others
v. Muddala Veeramallappa and Others [AIR (1961) SC 1107]
and Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social
Welfare Association [2006 (8) SCC 662]
Section 71 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer ... vs N.N. Jariwala on 21 October, 1991
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.
Chandrahasan N.V. Aged 73 Years vs The State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2011
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.
1