Kerala High Court held that the issue relating requirement of separate notification as contemplated by the provisions of section 6(1) of the CGST Act for cross-empowerment requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court.
Kerala High Court held that a loss in the derivative business is a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, and thus a set off of such business loss would have to be permitted against profits and gains of business.
Kerala High Court held that person found ineligible for any benefit received under the terms of any scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) is not liable to pay interest under section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Kerala High Court held that charges collected for provision of sophisticated medical beds for providing optimum nursing care to expecting mothers is liable to luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976.
Kerala High Court held that considering merits of the matter while deciding application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns not justified.
Kerala High Court held that order simply proceeded due to non-submission of reply to show cause notice issued under section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act not justified. Accordingly, matter restored back for fresh consideration.
In my view, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the statutory authority was bound to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner through video conferencing as mentioned above. The result of this infraction would be that the impugned orders will have to be set aside.
Held that the requirement of ensuring uniformity and consistency in tax assessments cannot be overlooked, especially while categorizing the nature of the activity carried on by an assessee to earn its income for the purposes of taxation.
There is nothing which would indicate that the petitioner had received any consideration from the Government, the KIIFB or the General Education Department as consideration for the supply of goods or services.
Kerala High Court held that amount of interest received by the foreman of a chit on defaulting subscriptions cannot be said to be amounts received as consideration for the supply of services. Thus, the same is not leviable to GST.
