Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 672 - KERALA HIGH COURTDelay in online application in form IB to remit compounded tax for cooked food - Doctrine of substantial compliance - Doctrine of implied power - petitioner argued that there is no prohibition or inhibition going by the phraseology of rule 11 of the Rules, and therefore, the statutory authority could have accepted the application for compounding, since they did not find any other default or defect in it - Held that:- The doctrine of substantial compliance does not, in any manner, authorise a statutory authority to permit institution of certain matter in the form of returns, etc., after the period prescribed. If the doctrine of implied power or the doctrine of substantial compliance is stretched to that limit, we can easily foresee abuse of power. The provision in rule 11 of the KVAT Rules, read with section 8 of the KVAT Act, does not provide any room for the statutory authority to condone delay on a ground referable to default of the assessee or his accountant, as in the case here. - Decided against assessee.
|