Vehicles Registered As Goods Carriage Vehicles Can't Be Classified Under Different Head For Demanding One-Time Tax: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles...

Burden Is On Assessee To Show Entitlement For Capital Gains Tax Exemption On Sale Of Agricultural Land: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue...

Income Tax Act | Principal Commissioner Has Authority To Cancel Registration Of Assessee Without Waiting For Decision From Assessing Authority: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a...

Income Tax | Whether There Was Proper Notice Or Not Is Disputed Question Of Fact, Can't Be Challenged Under Article 226: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. “…….As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. ...

Banks Can Initiate Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act To Recover Loan If It Wasn't Party To Resolution Plan: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Gopinath P. has held that a bank can initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover outstanding dues if it was not a party to the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that the bar against claims outside a resolution plan does not extend to third parties merely associated with the...

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...