https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405264 Penalty under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act could not be sustained where liability was not supported by material evidence and the levy rested on notional estimation of luxury charges. The Tribunal found no factual basis to split treatment receipts on a hypothetical basis, and no proof that the respondent collected amounts above the statutory threshold per room per day. It also noted that penalty generally requires an established statutory breach, not conjectural fixation of turnover or charge components. In the absence of a prior assessment determining liability and sufficient evidence to support the demand, the penalty was set aside and the State challenge failed. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405264 Penalty under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act could not be sustained where liability was not supported by material evidence and the levy rested on notional estimation of luxury charges. The Tribunal found no factual basis to split treatment receipts on a hypothetical basis, and no proof that the respondent collected amounts above the statutory threshold per room per day. It also noted that penalty generally requires an established statutory breach, not conjectural fixation of turnover or charge components. In the absence of a prior assessment determining liability and sufficient evidence to support the demand, the penalty was set aside and the State challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405264