Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 523 - KERALA HIGH COURT

2016 (8) TMI 523 - KERALA HIGH COURT - TMI - Valuation of closing stock Enquiry sales suppression and closing stock at the time of closure of business is assessable under KVAT Act, 2003 - adjudication of the court opportunity of heard provided Held that: - Whether this approach of the assessing officer is justifiable under the circumstances of the case and whether the objections submitted could have been further inquired into are all matters which requires an adjudication of facts, which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Shaffique , J. For the Petitioner : SRI.JOSE JOSEPH For the Respondent : SMT. K.T. LILLY JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer by which the petitioners' tax had been assessed at 46,75,884/- under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the year 2009-10. 2. Though there is an alternate remedy by way of appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that the direction issued by the appellate authority as per order dated 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the stock submitted by the appellant, especially when the status and place of stock and alleged sales are disputed, before rejecting the reply and there was no explanation for the same. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back and direction was issued to consider the matter in accordance with law. 4. The assessing authority again after issuing notice to the petitioner and considering the reply, passed the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the assessing aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing authority reads thus : "I have carefully examined the reply filed by the assessee in detail. In the reply, the assessee has stated that the assessing authority has overlooked certain crucial facts, which caused the vast difference of closing stock with opening stock. But the assesee has not put forth any valid reason for this variation. Therefore it may be seen that the difference is nothing else, but the sales turnover. The assessee has admitted the safe custody of closing stock with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version