https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416186 Penalty proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act were vitiated because the dealer was not given a meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegations or cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied on, and the adverse inference drawn from returned notices and estimated slips was unsustainable without proper enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also had power under Section 55 to set aside the penalty order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication, because the appellate scheme permits such other orders as are fit, including remand where procedural unfairness is found. The revision was therefore rejected and the remand sustained. en-us Mon, 15 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2021 12:07:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416186 Penalty proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act were vitiated because the dealer was not given a meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegations or cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied on, and the adverse inference drawn from returned notices and estimated slips was unsustainable without proper enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also had power under Section 55 to set aside the penalty order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication, because the appellate scheme permits such other orders as are fit, including remand where procedural unfairness is found. The revision was therefore rejected and the remand sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 15 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416186