Kerala High Court
What Is The Difference Between 'Non-Service Of Notice' & 'Lack Of Knowledge Of Service Of Notice'? Kerala High Court Explains
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'. “Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural...
Article 226 Can't Be Invoked Against An SCN Issued U/S 74 Of CGST Act At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage. “Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the...
Consolidated SCN Involving Multiple Assessment Years Can Be Issued Only When Common Period Of Adjudication Exists: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists. “Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated...
Cash Seized From Assessee Cannot Be Retained By GST Dept Or IT Dept Prior To Finalisation Of Proceedings: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that illegal cash seizure by GST Department and handing over to Income Tax Department is illegal under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jyasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. held that “Cash amount seized from the premises of the assessee cannot be retained either by the GST Department of the State or the Income Tax Department prior to a finalisation of respective proceedings initiated by them,” In this case, the...
Cess Levied On Cinema Tickets U/S 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act Is Constitutionally Valid: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally Valid. “Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List...
Writ Petition Maintainable If Arbitrator Refuses To Entertain Application U/S 3G(5) Of National Highways Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu JJ. while hearing a writ petition has held that when an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government refuses to entertain an application u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Courts can entertain a petition under Article 226 to the limited extent of referring the dispute to arbitration. Section 3G(5) places a statutory obligation upon the District Collector, who acts as an arbitrator, to receive applications...
Notice To Appoint Another Arbitrator To Continue Arbitration Proceedings Satisfies Mandate Of S.21Of A&C Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that a notice to revive a stalled arbitration proceedings by appointing another arbitrator satisfies the mandate of Section 21 of the A&C Act. Facts: The petitioner and respondent were partners of a firm named Orchard Builders and Developers; the same was registered with the Registrar of Firms, and a copy of the acknowledgement of firm registration was issued by the Registrar's...
Money In Bank Account Is 'Property', Liable For Provisional Attachment U/S 281B Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of...
[Income Tax] Assessing Officer Not Only An Adjudicator But Also An Investigator, Cannot Remain Oblivious To Claim Without Enquiry: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.” Under Section 263 of The Income-tax Act, 1961,...
'Arbitrator Can Only Decide On Point Which Is Referred To Tribunal, Not Entire Dispute': Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Dr A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. held that if the parties choose to refer to a singular point for arbitration, then the arbitral tribunal cannot proceed to decide on all disputes. On the contrary, if the parties agree to arbitrate on the entire disputes, then the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide the entire dispute and not a specific dispute. Additionally, the court held that clause 25.2 provided in the...
GST Act | Notification Not Needed For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials : Kerala High Court
In a significant judgment having a wide impact on several pending cases, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 15) ruled that separate notification is not necessary for the cross-empowerment of State officials under the Goods and Services Tax Act.A division bench comprising Justice Dr AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran delivered this significant judgment while answering a reference made to it by a single bench.The division bench endorsed the prima facie view expressed by the...
Interim Release Of Goods Can Be Ordered Pending Adjudication Of Notice U/S 130 GST Act In Lieu Of Fine: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that interim release of goods can be ordered pending adjudication of notice under section 130 GST Act in lieu of fine.The Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “….the adjudication can be proceeded even if the goods are released pending adjudication. Even if confiscation is ordered, there is an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation…..” The assessee/petitioner is engaged in the wholesale trade of gold, precious...