Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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"]

 

Latest Legal News