Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
HC held that notices issued to cancel petitioner-dealer's permission to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(iv) KVAT for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were unsustainable. Proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 were beyond the reasonable five-year limitation inferred for such action, rendering them time barred even independently of Section 25(1). HC further held Section 25AA(5) KVAT to be retrospectively applicable, as it was introduced after the VAT regime solely to govern such past situations; hence, only the suppressed turnover could be assessed at the scheduled rate without cancelling the compounding option for that year. Though initiation of cancellation proceedings was otherwise validly founded on intelligence reports, the impugned notices were quashed and the petition allowed.
HC held that notices issued to cancel petitioner-dealer's permission to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(iv) KVAT for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were unsustainable. Proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 were beyond the reasonable five-year limitation inferred for such action, rendering them time barred even independently of Section 25(1). HC further held Section 25AA(5) KVAT to be retrospectively applicable, as it was introduced after the VAT regime solely to govern such past situations; hence, only the suppressed turnover could be assessed at the scheduled rate without cancelling the compounding option for that year. Though initiation of cancellation proceedings was otherwise validly founded on intelligence reports, the impugned notices were quashed and the petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
