• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • Abortion
    US Supreme Court ends the right to
  • CAM
    CAM advises DFC for External Commercial
  • CAM acts for SBI on 15,727 crores transaction with Jindal Steel
    CAM acts for SBI on 15,727 crores
  • Companies-Act
    'Private Complaint for fraud under
  • Shri-Venkat-Nageswar-Chalasani
    RBI appoints Shri V N Chalasani as a
  • DGFT
    DGFT allows importation of Water Mellon
  • NCLT
    'CIRP cannot be initiated against
  • Insolvency
    SEBI Cannot initiate proceedings against
  • Sullivan-&-Cromwell-Freshfields
    Sullivan & Cromwell, Freshfields advise
  • Werner-Eyskens
    Crowell & Moring adds Werner Eyskens in
HomeNewsFrom the Courts
25 Nov 2021 7:30 AM GMT

Kerala High Court upholds validity of demand notices

By Legal Era
Kerala High Court upholds validity of demand notices

Kerala High Court upholds validity of demand notices The court directed that the government was bound to recover differential VAT from dealers The Kerala High Court has upheld the validity of the demand notices. It ruled that the state is bound to recover differential Value Added Tax (VAT) from dealers. The division bench of Justice S V Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Kerala High Court upholds validity of demand notices

The court directed that the government was bound to recover differential VAT from dealers

The Kerala High Court has upheld the validity of the demand notices. It ruled that the state is bound to recover differential Value Added Tax (VAT) from dealers.

The division bench of Justice S V Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act of 2011 was not controlled by the validation clause in the Act.

When the compounded tax for dealers in ornaments, including articles of gold and other metals were retrospectively amended for the year 2011-12, the dealers had raised a challenge against the collection of differential tax. Several writ petitions were filed before the court.

The single judge allowed the writ petitions after concluding that the differential tax attempted to be collected from the writ petitioners for the assessment year 2011-12 was legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the court quashed all the impugned orders/demand notices.

The VAT department had appealed contending that the retroactive operation of the compounded rate of tax was within the authority of the government. It further said that the consequential collection of differential tax was legally valid.

The petition was preferred when the dealer was directed to pay the balance tax under the newly introduced compounded rate of tax. It was contended that the compounded tax being in the nature of a contract, the government should be stopped from demanding the same at a higher rate. Even though the assessing officer had sanctioned that the tax could be paid in installments.

TAGS:
  • Kerala High Court 
  • Justice SV Bhatti 
  • Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas 
  • Value Added Tax 
  • Government of India 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
CAM

CAM advises DFC for External Commercial Borrowing

Tax on Alimony

Tax on Alimony

Janhit-Mein-Jaari

Copyright infringement: Bombay High Court directs removal of

Recognising Eminent Legal Professionals, In-house Legal Teams, and Law Firms shining brightly from the Middle East at the 2nd Annual Legal Era Middle East Law Awards 2021

Recognising Eminent Legal Professionals, In-house Legal

Recommended Articles
Digital Markets Must be Defined Well for Competition Regulation

Digital Markets Must be Defined Well for Competition

Legal Considerations for Investments in Data Centers in India

Legal Considerations for Investments in Data Centers in

From General Counsel to Independent Director

From General Counsel to Independent Director

Revitalizing The Insolvency Regime in India

Revitalizing The Insolvency Regime in India

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X