MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

“Appellant Entitled to Be Heard on Merits”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court’s Decision on Tax Appeal Restoration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India has set aside orders from the Kerala High Court and the appellate authority, thereby allowing the restoration of a statutory appeal under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that “the appellant is entitled to be heard on the merits of his appeal.”

The case involved an appellant who had his dealer registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act canceled by the Sales Tax Officer. The appellant initially filed an appeal against this decision but later withdrew it to avail a Government Amnesty Scheme. Unfortunately, he could not benefit from the scheme and subsequently sought to restore his appeal.

The Supreme Court observed, “Since the appellant did not avail such a benefit, he was entitled to be heard in the appeal on merits.” The judgement calls into question the administrative oversights by both the appellate authority and the Kerala High Court, stating that they “ought to have permitted the appellant herein to seek restoration of his appeal.”

The court also granted the appellant the liberty to seek interim relief, directing that such an application should be “considered expeditiously and disposed of in accordance with law.”

Legal experts view this as a significant decision, underscoring the importance of allowing appellants to exercise their statutory rights, especially when they fail to benefit from government schemes designed to provide relief.

Both parties have been directed to appear before the appellate authority for a hearing on the merits of the case on October 4, 2023.

Date of Decision: SEPTEMBER 1, 2023

M. PAUL vs STATE TAX OFFICER & ORS.         

Latest Legal News