Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Viani Papers vs Fast Track Team on 12 January, 2009

P.V.Rajan vs Fast Track Team No.Iv on 19 March, 2009

2. In Ext.P3, it is stated that the assessee has reported a total turnover of Rs.7,59,540/=. The taxable turnover is also fixed at the same figure. Petitioner is called upon to pay tax in a sum of Rs.29,652/= which includes additional sales tax also. I find in Ext.P3, at the top of the page, the amount is shown as Rs.1,59,819/= and thereafter, the taxable turnover was fixed as Rs.7,59,549/=. According to petitioner, petitioner has filed Ext.P2 return as per which the total turnover for the year is Rs.1,59,819/= which is below the assessable limit. Admittedly, there is no pre-assessment notice. It is contended that there is no scope for deviating from the returned figures and estimation of WPC.7997/09 T 2 turnover. It is contrary to the Circular No.17/07 as also the decision of this court in Viani Papers v. Fast Track Team (2008 (2) KLT 511). In such circumstances, I am constrained to quash Ext.P3. The assessment will be completed after issuing a proper pre-assessment notice to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) on 9 June, 2009

2. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed a counter W.P.(C) No. 13753 OF 2009 2 affidavit rebutting the various averments and allegations raised by the petitioner . However, the challenge raised by the petitioner as against sub section 5 of Section 17D of the KGST Act is no more open to challenge in view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court in Viani Papers vs. Fast Track Team [2008(2) KLT 511].
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

E.K.Mohamed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2009

The petitioner is challenging the fast track assessment made by the second respondent under the relevant provisions of law as borne by Ext.P4 to P9, on many a ground. The petitioner, though is very much aware of the availability of the statutory remedy and the course to be pursued has chosen to approach this Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of law; which has been answered against him by the decision rendered by this Court in Viani Paper Mills Vs. Fast Track Team (2008 (2) KLT 511).
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

T.I. Raju vs Commercial Tax Officer on 13 July, 2009

The main case put forth by the petitioner in both these cases is against the constitutional validity of Section 17 D of the KGST Act, which has been considered by this Court and answered against the assessee as per the decision rendered by this Court in Viani Paper Mills Vs. Fast Track Team (2008 (1) KLT 511). This being the position, the consequential prayers are not liable to be entertained and the remedy of the petitioners, if any, can only be by challenging the impugned orders availing the statutory remedy.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

Anup Varghese vs Commercial Tax Officer on 14 September, 2009

In support of this contention the petitioner points out a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Viani Papers Vs. Fast Track Team reported in 2008 (2) KHC 44 (DB). In that case this Court held that if the Fast Track team is of the opinion that the returns filed by the assessee are untrue, incorrect and improper and therefore the returns are required to be rejected, then the fast track team was expected to issue pre-assessment notice before passing the best judgment assessment. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that in the case at hand the turnover returned by the petitioner was not rejected and hence non-issuance of pre-assessment notice has not vitiated the proceedings. According to the petitioner the claim based on Form-25 declarations were not fully considered while making the assessment.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - C V Rehim - Full Document

Shajir Arafath vs The Fast Trrack Team on 10 February, 2009

The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 pre assessment notice was issued by the second respondent and not by the first respondent Fast Track Team as was warranted. The invalidity of Ext.P1 notice is set up based on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in Viani Papers vs. Fast Track Team and another. The petitioner did not respond to Ext.P1 notice and therefore Ext.P2 order of best judgment assessment followed.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1