Dismissed

Ernad Granites Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Nov 2007WP(C)/419/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demand for compounding fee on a primary crusher. The petitioner relied on an earlier clarification which was held inapplicable due to the Finance Act 2001 amendment. The Court directed the respondent to compute liability in accordance with the amended provisions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to compute liability and interest under the compounding scheme in accordance with the amended provisions of the KGST Act.

Ernad Granites Private Limited Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 419 of 2004(Y)

PETITIONER:

ERNAD GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHOWKATHALI, U.K. PADI, VELLILA, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

SALES TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶15

TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PERINTHALMANNA.

¶16

BY ADV. SHRI.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) No. 419/2004

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C5.42334/00/CT DATED 13/12/2000 OF COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/06/2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IN FORM NO. 24 DATED 10/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 28/09/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶30

WP(C) No. 419 of 2004

¶31

Dated, this the 20^th day of November, 2007

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner is challenging demand of compounding fee charged, for the year 2003-04, under Section 7(1)(b) of the KGST Act for primary crusher. According to the petitioner compounding fee is payable only for secondary crushers. Petitioner has relied on Ext.P1 clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. However, learned Government Pleader reported that primary crushers also attract compounding fee by virtue of amendment introduced by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 23/07/2001. This Court has upheld the amendment and the demand vide judgment in Suma Devi Vs. State of Kerala , reported in 2005 (2) KLT 870. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to compute liability and interest under compounding scheme in accordance with the amended provisions and the judgment above referred. If petitioner does not make payment in terms of demand, respondents are free to proceed with recovery.

¶34

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶35

Ernad Granites Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ernad Granites Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulrahman.B.a. Vs P.M.Babu

E.S.Jose Vs Tahsildar,Kanayannur

M/S.Gajanana Agencies Vs the Intelligence Officer,Kasaragod

P.Sukumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

B Sreenivasan Vs Secretary Khadi and Village Industries

Karthiyani Narayanan Vs District Collector