Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty orders under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were liable to be interfered with on the ground of violation of natural justice and non-consideration of objections, and whether the writ appeal deserved interference with the Single Judge's refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The record showed that personal hearing was offered before the penalty proceedings and that adjournments were sought by the appellant on both occasions on the ground that it was attempting to file returns and remit tax due. Those requests did not mention any objections having been filed to the proposal notices. Although copies of objections were produced in the writ petition, the departmental file did not disclose receipt of such objections. On that material, the finding that there was no factual basis to hold that objections had been submitted was not shown to be incorrect. In that situation, there was no basis to conclude that the principles of natural justice had been violated or that the learned Single Judge erred in declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty proceedings failed, and the writ appeal was not entitled to interference.