Baiju A. A. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) (i) the assessments in respect of which the period of limitation for re-opening under Section 25 of the KVAT Act was to expire by 31.03.2017 can be re-opened up to 31.03.2018 by virtue of the amendment to the third proviso to Section 25 (1) vide […]
Alfa Group Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) There is no provision under the GST Act which mandates that the goods shall not be sold at prices below the MRP declared thereon. Further, there is nothing in Ext.P2 order that shows that, on account of the alleged wrong classification of the goods […]
High Court held that in the case of deposits made by the petitioner societies with the Co-operative Banks, they would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 194A(3)(iii)(v) of the Income Tax Act and, in respect of the deposits made by the petitioner societies with the Treasury, they will not be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section taxguru.in 194A(3)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Goods belonging to the petitioner, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the E-way bill raised in connection with invoice. Discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity.It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser. Reasons shown, that are impugned in this writ petition, are not sufficient for the purposes of detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act.
Polycab India Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Goods were detained on the ground that there was a possibility of evasion of payment of IGST in Kerala and further, that the consignee of the goods in Kerala was indicated as an unregistered dealer at the time of detention of the goods. It is […]
In the instant case, as already noted, the availment of credit by the petitioner, and its entitlement to distribute the credit to its various branches is not disputed. I am therefore of the view that the 5th respondent should either permit the petitioner to file a rectified TRAN-1 Form electronically in favour of each of its branches in the country, or accept manually filed TRAN -1 Form with the appropriate corrections, on or before 30.12.2019.
In order to decide whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Section 11, it is necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether it satisfy the requirement of Section 11 (4A).
FCI OEN Connectors Limited Vs DCIT (Kerala High Court) e-proceeding facility that was introduced as part of the Government initiative towards e-Governance, in the Income Tax Department, was not made mandatory for proceedings initiated against assessees in Kochi city. Save for the assessees in the seven metro cities specified, of which Kochi is not one, […]
MEIS benefit available even if concerned box not checked in shipping bill: In a case where the exporter did not check the concerned box in the shipping bill to read ‘Yes’ against the query with regard to intention to claim MEIS benefit, but in the column meant for description had clearly indicated his intention to avail the benefit of the said export promotion scheme, Kerala High Court has directed the department to consider claim for benefit under MEIS.
Smeara Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) In case of detention of goods, where the assessee had paid 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed. We find force in the above said contention. Subsection (7) of S.107 provides […]
