Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

High Court of Kerala Upholds Restriction on Input Tax Credit for Exempted Inter-State Sales of Rubber

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a latest decision, the High Court of Kerala, consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, has delivered a significant judgment on the applicability of input tax credits under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act in conjunction with the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act. The judgment, dated November 21, 2023, addresses critical issues related to tax exemptions and input tax credits for inter-state sales of rubber.

 

 

The court examined several revision petitions (O.T. Rev. Nos. 45, 51, 52, 53, 61 of 2022), involving assessments under the KVAT and CST Acts for the years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The appellants, A.M. Rahman and Shabeer Babu T.P., challenged the denial of input tax credit and special rebate on their inter-state sales of rubber, which were exempted under notifications issued pursuant to Section 8(5) of the CST Act.

 

 

In their judgment, the justices emphasized the statutory framework governing the exemptions and rebates. The court observed, "While de hors the said provisions, Annexures-I and II notifications may probably be seen as conferring an optional exemption in respect of the tax payable under Section 8(1) of the CST Act, in view of the specific provisions of the 3rd proviso to Section 11(3) and the 3rd proviso to Section 12(1) of the KVAT Act extracted above, we cannot find it in ourselves to read the exemption notifications as optional in the particular statutory context."

 

 

The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the exemption notifications and their implications on the input tax credit under the KVAT Act. It was concluded that the notifications effectively rendered the inter-state sales of rubber as exempted, thereby restricting the appellants' entitlement to avail input tax credit for the tax paid on purchases of rubber within the state.

 

 

 Date of Decision: 21st November 2023

 

 

A.M.RAHMAN  Versus STATE OF KERALA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Kerl-21-Nov-2023-A_M_Rahman_vs_State_Of_Kerala_Tax.pdf"]

 

Similar News