Notification pertaining to the ban on Online Rummy was declared as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to assessee under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and hence not enforceable.
Davis Raphel Vs Hendry Thomas (Kerala High Court) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in the civil suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2019 in A.S.No.58/2016 of the Sub Court, Payyannur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate court’) by which judgment, the first appeal of the defendant was dismissed […]
N. Raveendran Vs Shajahan (Kerala High Court) The absence of salutation Like Mr./M/s. while drawing the cheque by accused cannot be a ground for the accused to be acquitted from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT This appeal arises out of the judgment […]
Pomsy Food Products (P) Ltd Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) High Court held that Interest under the Customs Act is statutory. There can be no waiver of such interest unless such waiver is provided for in the provisions of the Customs Act itself. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT The petitioner […]
V.P. Zacharia Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) his is a case where the 2nd respondent/accused has been successful in rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The fact that there was an earlier transaction in the year 1995 and that liability had been settled by repayment is a […]
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not applicable in respect of an agreement for sale which was void in nature. It was settled law that what could not be sold directly was not also be sold indirectly by way of contract for sale. It was within the realm of the competent authority to take appropriate action for restoration of the land assigned to the original assignee in accordance with law.
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has declared that the proper officer is not vested with any power to cancel registration certificate of a dealer, for reasons not prescribed U/s. 29 (2) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act/State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act & SGST Act).
Unutilised ITC is an asset and a statutory right in the hands of the dealer that cannot be defeated by any procedural rules on account of technical glitches. Further held that, granting an opportunity of hearing is only to enable the process of decision-making simpler and it is one of the basic principles of natural justice and such technical issues do not stand in the way of rendering justice.
Expenditure made by assessee towards purchase of equipment, such as wheel balancer/wheel aligner/wheel changer/tyre changer, was capital expenditure but not revenue expenditure as assessee had installed equipment’s, which could be removed and also could be taken back and reused in some other place and assessee would continue to be the owner of these equipments, though they were installed in the premises of the dealers.
Assistant State Tax Officer (Intelligence) Vs. VST And Sons (P) Limited (Kerala High Court) Disposing Writ Appeal No. 914 of 2021 on 22.07.2021 (Assistant State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Alappuzha Vs. VST & Sons (P) Limited) a division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has propounded that e –way bill is not necessary for transportation of personal […]
