M\/s. Ishana Golds And Precious (P) LTD. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Vatakara, The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Kozhikode The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal And State Of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (3) TMI 90 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-2-2018
W.P.(C) No.5271 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
P. B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : Sri.K.J.Abraham Sri.C.Ajith Kumar Sri.Nikhil John
\nFor The Respondents : Sri. V.K. Shamsudeen
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe petitioner, a dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act), had opted to pay tax at the compounded rates provided for under the stat<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 2 order in appeal. The appellate authority found that Ext.P2 is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and consequently directed the assessing authority to pass fresh orders. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the appellate authority in this connection. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order before the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal, though dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner, made certain observations as to the manner in which the tax liability of the petitioner for the relevant year should have been fixed. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the appellate tribunal. Thereupon, the matter was reconsidered and a fresh order was passed by the assessing authority. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n itioner as also the learned Government Pleader. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Ishana Golds And Precious (P) LTD. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Vatakara, The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Kozhikode The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal And State Of Kerala, ThiruvananthapuramVAT and Sales Tax2018 (3) TMI 90 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMIKERALA HIGH COURT – … Continue reading “M\/s. Ishana Golds And Precious (P) LTD. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Vatakara, The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Kozhikode The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10701","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. As noted above, the tax payable by the petitioner was initially determined in terms of Ext.P1 order as Rs. 6,88,452\/-. The said order was later rectified by the assessing authority refixing the tax liability of the petitioner as Rs. 12,34,830\/- as per Ext.P2 order. Had the petitioner paid the deficit amount namely, Rs. 5,46,378\/- then and there, the issue would have been over. The specific case of the petitioner is that the determination of the amount payable by them made in terms of Ext.P2 order is incorrect. It is on account of the said reason that the petitioner took up the matter in appeal, and later in second appeal. It is in the place of Rs. 5,46,378\/- which the petitioner challenged<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n