TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned single judge See page [2014] 68 VST 63. did not find merit in the contention of the appellant that there is violation of principles of natural justice and he dismissed the writ petition noting that the remedy of the appellant is to file appeal before the statutory authority. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader. What is pointed out by the appellant is that the notices were issued under sections 25 and 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the Act", for short) wherein it was noted that there is no evidence or documents produced in support of the claim in the return of the appellant that there was exempted sale under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. No doubt, objections were ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally unembodied principles of equity. Their application depends on the context in which the question arises for consideration in each case. It is the justice of common law supplying the defects in the statute wherein principles of natural justice are not statutorily embedded. 6. In this case, the appellant has filed returns. She claimed benefit of exemption under section 5(2) of the CST Act. (The second limb of section 5(2)). In other words, it is her case that there were high sea sales. The officer was not convinced. He resorted to section 25 of the Act. He also decided to invoke section 67 of the Act. Accordingly, notice is served. In the notice, after referring to the claim of the appellant and after referring to section 5(2) what is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lled. The appellant has not filed objection. The explanation of the appellant is that it is understood that what is involved is non-production of requisite documents and when the documents were produced the appellant was under the impression she will get relief. 8. We would think that, in the facts and circumstance of this case, the appellant is justified in contending that the appellant should not be driven to the alternative remedy as had the appellant been given a specific opportunity, she may have been able to explain her version and to establish the contention that there was indeed high sea sale as contemplated in law. A perusal of the orders would show that various defects have been found in the documents. The appellant was never ask....