9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a houseboat. She claims to have leased out the boat to her husband on 6.6.2011, under Exhibit P1 lease agreement. According to the petitioner, her husband being a resident of Kottayam District, had registered the houseboat at Kottayam, as mandated under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 ('the Act', for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bit P1 agreement and her husband having remitted luxury tax at Kottayam, Exhibit P3 is invalid. The learned counsel has also contended that the time limit for completing the assessment under Section 6(2) is four years from the expiry of the assessment year and as such, the order of assessment issued on 2.6.2018 with respect to the assessment year 2011-2012 is barred by limitation. 3. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in spite of best efforts, the petitioner had not furnished any material in support of the contention that Exhibit P3 is issued in respect of the boat registered at Kottayam. As such, the contention is liable to be rejected, since Exhibit P1 can only be a self serving document, created with the intention of misleading the authorities and this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
