Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Valid Documents Indicate No Tax Evasion Intent: Kerala High Court in Petrolink Case

20 February 2025 11:18 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


The High Court of Kerala dismissed the State’s revision petitions challenging the cancellation of a penalty imposed on Petrolink Data Services (P) Ltd. The bench, comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mr. Justice Syam Kumar V.M., upheld the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Appellate Tribunal’s order, which found that the consignment of goods was accompanied by valid transport documents, negating any intent to evade tax.

The respondent, Petrolink Data Services (P) Ltd., engaged in IT technical support and software development, faced penalty proceedings for a consignment of computers and peripherals obtained from Bangalore in 2012-2013. Despite claims of valid documentation, the Intelligence Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,12,900, alleging tax evasion due to lack of registration under the KVAT Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld the penalty, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal, which subsequently overturned the penalty.

The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the case, found that the consignment was accompanied by necessary documents, including Form 8F declarations, tax invoices, and an e-sugam form. Furthermore, the assessee produced Form 16 post-detention to demonstrate the goods were for their own use, not resale. The Tribunal ruled that the penalty was unsustainable as the required documents were in order and there was no evidence of an intent to evade tax.

The High Court, concurring with the Tribunal, noted that the consignment was duly documented, and the assessee had paid a higher rate of Central Sales Tax (CST) applicable to unregistered dealers, indicating no tax benefit sought through evasion. The court found no material evidence suggesting the assessee engaged in trading activities during the relevant assessment year. The bench emphasized that the documentation aligned with Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, thereby dismissing the revenue’s allegations of tax evasion.

“The consignment that was detained was accompanied by valid transport documents such as the invoice and the checkpost declarations in Form 8F,” stated the bench. “There was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of tax,” the court observed, validating the Tribunal’s conclusions.

The High Court’s decision underscored the significance of proper documentation in assessing tax compliance. The ruling affirmed that the presence of complete and valid documents, along with immediate corrective actions by the assessee, nullified the grounds for the penalty. The court highlighted that merely the absence of KVAT registration at the time of consignment receipt did not constitute tax evasion, especially when higher CST was paid.

The High Court’s affirmation of the Tribunal’s order reinforces the importance of accurate documentation in tax proceedings and limits the scope for imposing penalties in the absence of clear intent to evade taxes. This judgment is pivotal for businesses, emphasizing adherence to documentation norms to avoid unwarranted penalties.

Date of Decision:  17th July 2024
 

Latest Legal News