Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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