MAHESH, S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, KOLLAM, THE STATE TAX OFFICER 1 CIRCLE, GST COMPLEX, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, SRI. M.S. VIJAYAKUMAR, VIJAYAKUMAR PROVISION STORES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 2018 (7) TMI 232 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Penalty u/s 67(1)(c)(d) & (i) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Held that:- The issue whether the petitioner is liable to penalty under the Act is a matter for the first respondent to consider at the first instance, after considering the objections, if any, raised by the petitioner against the proposal made in Ext. P1
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ngs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The issue whether the petitioner is liable to penalty under the Act is a matter for the first respondent to consider at the first instance, after considering the objections, if any, raised by the petitioner against the proposal made in Ext. P1 notice. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise objections against the proposal made in Ext.P1 notice. Needless to say that if the petitioner raises objection against the proposal made in Ext.P1 notice, orders shall be passed after considering the objections raised by the petitione
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =