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

        Penalty and assessment orders for 2009-11 set aside due to reliance on third-party slips, violating fair investigation rules under Section 143.

        Yousaph. C Versus State Of Kerala Represented By Secretary To Government, Taxes Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

        Yousaph. C Versus State Of Kerala Represented By Secretary To Government, Taxes Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - (2023) 118 G ... Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of the penalty orders under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11.
        2. Legality of the assessment orders for the same years.
        3. Validity of the evidence used to impose penalties and assessments.
        4. Appropriateness of the Tribunal's decision to restore penalty and assessment orders.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of the Penalty Orders:
        The core issue pertains to the legality of the penalty orders under the KVAT Act for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The penalties were initially imposed based on a shop inspection conducted on 4.9.2010, where certain slips were recovered. The Intelligence Officer imposed penalties based on these slips, assuming they pertained to the petitioner's business. The First Appellate Authority, however, set aside these penalties, directing a fresh examination of the seized documents. In the subsequent proceedings, the penalties were re-imposed, leading to further appeals. The Tribunal ultimately restored the penalties, but the High Court found this reasoning flawed, setting aside the penalty orders.

        2. Legality of the Assessment Orders:
        The assessment orders for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were closely tied to the penalty orders. The Tribunal had restored these assessment orders based on the upheld penalties. However, the High Court noted that the assessments were mechanically completed based on the penalty findings, which were themselves based on disputed evidence. The High Court's decision to set aside the penalty orders also necessitated the setting aside of the related assessment orders.

        3. Validity of the Evidence Used:
        The evidence in question was slips recovered from one Balachandran during the inspection. Balachandran, along with other dealers, deposed that the slips pertained to businesses other than the petitioner's. The First Appellate Authority accepted this evidence, noting that the dealers were deposing against their own interests. The Tribunal, however, disregarded this evidence, leading to the restoration of penalties. The High Court criticized this approach, emphasizing that the evidence should have been given due weight, and the Department should have investigated the other dealers' admissions.

        4. Appropriateness of the Tribunal's Decision:
        The Tribunal's decision to restore the penalty and assessment orders was based on the presumption that the slips pertained to the petitioner's business. The High Court found this reasoning unsatisfactory, noting that the Tribunal and the Intelligence Officer failed to justify discarding the evidence provided by Balachandran and the other dealers. The High Court upheld the First Appellate Authority's reasoning, which found the penalties unsustainable due to reliance on presumptions and lack of proper evidence.

        Conclusion:
        The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, restoring the penalties and assessments for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The Court found the First Appellate Authority's reasoning more acceptable, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of evidence and rejecting mechanical presumptions. The revisions were allowed in favor of the assessee, and the questions of law were answered against the Revenue.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found