This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P5(a) assessment orders under KVAT Act, 2003 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 completed under Section 25(1) of the Act. Though the impugned orders are appealable, according to the petitioner
HC held that The mere fact that petitioner’s work, which commenced in previous year, had been compounded for that year would not require continuance under the scheme in subsequent year, for reason of there being no provision available requiring such a continuance.
A hospital attached to a Medical College can be treated as a building used for educational purposes only when medical relief offered in said hospital is free of cost.
The petitioner, the wife of an assessee in default, is before this Court aggrieved by Exhibits P9, P10 and P12 by which the Income-tax authorities proceeded against her property comprised in Survey Number 354/17/8, Re-survey number 681/9; which also adjoins the property in which the petitioner runs a hotel.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the revisional order passed at Ext.P5. The petitioner challenges the assessment made of the building constructed by the petitioner, under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (Act for short).
Aassessment order itself reveals that the Revenue has placed reliance on the proceedings initiated against the appellant for imposition of penalty under Section 67 of the KVAT Act based on an inspection held on 17.08.2006. It is seen that the Revenue relied on letter dated 18.09.2007 issued by V. Ahammed to the Assistant Director of […]
HC held that Though there is a provision to revise the returns filed under the KVAT Act, there is absolutely no provision where the auditor could file a revised report.
The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner had detected the defects noticed by the Assessing Officer when audit was conducted of the accounts of the petitioner. It was in that context that the petitioner sent an e-mail, as per Ext.P4, for revision of return, which is said to be dated 29.08.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pursue the application for revision and waited till three years, when a proposal for re-opening was issued under Section 25(1) of the Act dated 27.10.2016. A reply was filed at Ext.P3, in which a contention was taken with respect to the e-mail sent on 29.08.2013.
Article is case study on constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 and covers all earlier judgments on the subject and is based on the Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School Vs. Union Of India.
It is apparent that the proceedings conducted by an officer of the Central Excise are vitally different from the investigation by a police officer. It is implicit that a person who is making a statement before a Central Excise Officer can be called upon to sign the statement. On a combined reading of Sections 13 and 14, it is clear that an officer of the Central Excise is not a mere police officer. He is different. He is even more. A substantive power to arrest has been conferred on him under Section 13. The proceedings conducted by him are judicial. The person who is interrogated is bound to state the truth.
