Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Dismissed appeal upholds compounding order; admission to offence bars challenge. Stock valuation not appealable.

        I.K Muneer, Proprietor, M/s Plastoware Traders Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Third Circle, Kollam, The Intelligence Officer, The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes And State Bank Of Travancore, Anandavalleswaram, Kollam,

        I.K Muneer, Proprietor, M/s Plastoware Traders Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Third Circle, Kollam, The Intelligence Officer, The Deputy Commissioner, ... Issues Involved:
        1. Challenge to the assessment order based on compounding order.
        2. Discrepancy in the valuation of stock at MRP rate.
        3. Maintainability of rectification application.
        4. Conflict between judgments in Jaya Jewellers and Trichur Auto Spares.
        5. Legal justification for appeal against compounding order.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Challenge to the assessment order based on compounding order:
        The petitioner challenged the assessment order (Ext.P6) for the year 2014-15, arguing that it was based on a compounding order which was patently illegal. The petitioner had initially applied for compounding the offence to avoid unpleasant consequences and paid Rs. 8 lakhs as a compounding fee/tax under Section 74 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner contended that the compounding fee was erroneously calculated based on the MRP rate of the stock, which was not permissible under the Act. The taxable event under the Act is sale/purchase, and thus, the actual sale price/purchase price should be used for valuation.

        2. Discrepancy in the valuation of stock at MRP rate:
        The petitioner argued that the estimation of the value of the stock at MRP rate was incorrect and unsustainable in law. The compounding fee should have been calculated based on the actual sale price/purchase price, not the MRP. The petitioner expected the correction of this anomaly in the statutory revision and contended that the assessment based on said valuation was illegal and arbitrary.

        3. Maintainability of rectification application:
        The petitioner filed a rectification application, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the grounds that there was no provision for rectification. The petitioner then filed a revision petition along with an application to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge found that since the petitioner had accepted the offence and agreed for compounding, the rectification application was not maintainable, even according to the dictum laid down in Trichur Auto Spares. The petitioner did not file any appeal or pay the amounts determined as compounding fee, and thus, the writ petition was dismissed.

        4. Conflict between judgments in Jaya Jewellers and Trichur Auto Spares:
        The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was a conflict between the judgments in Jaya Jewellers and Trichur Auto Spares. In Jaya Jewellers, it was held that once a compounding is accepted, the order cannot be challenged. In contrast, Trichur Auto Spares allowed for an appeal in cases of patent mistakes in the quantification of the compounding fee. The court noted this conflict but ultimately aligned with the view that once the compounding is accepted, the order cannot be challenged, especially when the facts are not disputed, and the compounding application is filed without coercion.

        5. Legal justification for appeal against compounding order:
        Section 55 of the Act allows any person aggrieved by an order to prefer an appeal. However, there is no provision indicating that no appeal could be filed against an order passed under Section 74. The court observed that if the dispute pertains solely to the quantification of the compounding fee, an appeal under Section 55 is the remedy. However, in the present case, the petitioner had admitted to the offence and the turnover suppression, thus agreeing to the compounding. The court found that the petitioner could not challenge the compounding order since it was accepted without coercion, and the factual circumstances did not justify interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the compounding order as he had admitted to the offence and agreed to the compounding without coercion. The valuation of stock at MRP rate and the quantification of the compounding fee were not grounds for maintaining a rectification application or an appeal, given the circumstances of the case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found