-
When the provisional registration was not cancelled by Revenue and had granted a regular registration on January 04, 2020, the permanent registration must relate back to the date of the provisional registration and the Assessee ought to be entitled to upload the returns for the past period and to avail ITC based on returns uploaded.
Madhav Motors vs. State Tax Officer & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4350 (HC-KERALA)
-
The officer at Ernakulam has been authorised to look into the matter specifically on the grounds stated in the statement, the location of the lawyer cannot at all be a reason for the department to carry out proceedings in a particular place.
Rajive and Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4280 (HC-KERALA)
-
Although the Petitioner subsequently submitted the soft copy of the invoice, the invoice itself showed that it was generated after commencement of the transportation.
Venus Enterprises vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4279 (HC-KERALA)
-
No opportunity of personal hearing was given to the Assessee before passing the impugned order, moreover, no opportunity to provide additional documents was given.
Thoppil Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4278 (HC-KERALA)
-
If the transaction of sale or purchase takes place when the goods are imported in India or they are being exported from India, no State can impose any tax thereon.
CIAL Duty Free and Retail Services Ltd. (CDRSL) & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4227 (HC-KERALA)
-
Recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner, by the assessment orders and demand notices, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority through statutory appeals in the meanwhile.
K. U. Niyas vs. The Assisstant Commissioner
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4148 (HC-KERALA)
-
As per Section 169(c) and (d) the service of any communication to the e-mail address provided by an assessee at the time of registration, as also by making available the communication in the common portal of the department, was to be treated as an effective communication under the statute.
K. U. Niyas vs. The Assisstant Commissioner
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4147 (HC-KERALA)
-
After the stage of investigation, the Revenue shall return to the Assessee, all such seized documents as are not relied upon by them for proceeding further against the Assessee.
Rajive and Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4146 (HC-KERALA)
-
The service of an order through the web portal is one of the methods of service statutorily prescribed under Section 161(1)(c) and (d) of the SGST Act and Assessee cannot deny the fact of receipt of order for the purposes of filing returns u/s 62 of the Act with a view to getting the assessment order withdrawn.
Pee Bee Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4117 (HC-KERALA)
-
Since there is no requirement of mentioning the GST applicable in the e-way bill. Therefore, the authorities are not justified in detaining the consignment.
Krishnakumar vs. The Assisstant State Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4114 (HC-KERALA)
-
Reason to believe, at the risk of repetition, to be entered into by the officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, is that goods liable to confiscation or material relevant to any proceedings under the Act is secreted in a place.
Suresh Kumar P.P & Aboobacker Sidhique (Kerala Communications Cable Ltd.) vs. DGGI
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4090 (HC-KERALA)
-
It is imperative for the petitioner to make out a case of gross illegality, irregularity and without jurisdiction or against the principles of natural justice.
Abdul Saleem vs. State Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4084 (HC-KERALA)
-
If the statutorily prescribed form itself does not contain a field for entering the details of the tax payable in the e-way bill, then the non-mentioning of the tax amount cannot be seen as an act in contravention of the rules.
M.S. Steel and Pipes vs. Assistant State Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4083 (HC-KERALA)
-
Any default in payment of even a single instalment shall lead to losing of this benefit of payment in instalments & it will be open to the Revenue to proceed with recovery proceedings for realisation of unpaid tax.
Pazhayidom Food Ventures (P) Ltd vs. Superintendent Commercial Taxes
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4082 (HC-KERALA)
-
The issue needs to be considered by the Learned Single Judge. Assessees prayed to withdraw the earlier Writ Petitions without prejudice to their contentions, and such withdrawal is allowed.
C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan vs. GST Council & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4078 (HC-KERALA)
-
An invoice could be issued either at the time of removal of goods or prior to the delivery of the goods and that the same is in consonance with the statute and hence, there is no cause for doubting any evasion of tax as per section 31 of the CGST Act.
M/s Hero Ecotech Ltd vs. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4068 (HC-KERALA)
-
Recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the assessee by the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 6 weeks so as to enable the assessee to move the Appellate Authority.
Amani Machine Centre vs. The State Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4047 (HC-KERALA)
-
Error pointed out by the Revenue that the address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E Way bill etc. is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings.
M.R. Traders vs. Assistant State Tax Officer, State GST Department
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3735 (HC-KERALA)
-
Most taxes are paid online without human to human contact and hence there is no legal rationale for the HC to pass such broad omnibus directions.
Suo Moto Vs High Court
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3670 (HC-KERALA)
-
In the instant case the jurisdictional fact regarding the six months' continuous default on the part of the assessee was certainly fulfilled at the time of issuance of show cause notice, but vital requirement of jurisdictional fact was non-existent as on the date of issuance of cancellation order.
Phoenix Rubbers vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3649 (HC-KERALA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.