- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1141 of 2002, dated November 27, 2003 Reported as Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, 2004 137 STC 377. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the judgment and orders passed by the single judge Reported as Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, 2003 129 STC 90 and has come to the conclusion that the assessing authority was justified in imposing additional tax Under Section 5D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the K.G.S.T. Act"). The facts in brief are as under: The Appellant is a dealer in gold and silver ornaments. It is registered both under the K.G.S.T. Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Appellant had opted to pay tax at the compounded rate as provided Under Section 7 of the K.G.S.T. Act and the request of the Appellant was accepted by the Department. The Appellant continued to pay tax at the compounded rate for the assessment year 2001-02.
(2.)On July 23, 2001, the Legislature had brought in an amendment to the K.G.S.T. Act by inserting Section 5D to the K.G.S.T. Act levying additional tax on those dealers who are taxable Under Section 5 and 5A of the K.G.S.T. Act. The Appellant in accordance with this provision deposited additional tax for the months of July and August 2001. Being aggrieved by the demand of additional tax Under Section 5D of the K.G.S.T. Act for the aforesaid months and also for subsequent months, the Appellant has approached the writ court.
(3.)The learned single judge Reported as Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, 2003 129 STC 90 of the High Court after a careful consideration, has come to the conclusion that when a dealer exercises his option to pay tax at the compounded rate Under Section 7 of the K.G.S.T. Act, it pays the tax payable Under Section 5(1) of the K.G.S.T. Act and therefore the Appellant is liable to pay the additional tax Under Section 5D of the K.G.S.T. Act. The Division Bench Reported as Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, 2004 137 STC 377 of the High Court has confirmed the orders passed by the learned single judge Reported as Bhima Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, 2003 129 STC 90. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order, which is called in question' by the Appellant before this Court.