Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.37 seconds)

State Of Kerala vs Mytheen Pillai Muhammed Kannu And Ors. on 14 March, 1996

The amendment by the Finance Act, 2008 only clarifies the fact that the amount covered under credit notes issued by a supplier that do not affect the input tax credit already availed shall not be reckoned for the purpose of assessment under the Act. This provision according to me cannot be extended to the assessment of turnover for the purpose of payment of tax. Of course, it could be said that there is some ambiguity to the provision. But in so far as the liability to pay tax is on the turnover and discount given is part of the turnover, which is clearly indicated in Cement House (supra) and Syed Muhammed (supra), I do not think that a different view is possible to be taken in the matter.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Tenny Devassy vs State Of Kerala on 30 December, 2011

7. The learned Government Pleader places reliance upon two judgments of this Court in State of Kerala v. Syed Muhammed (2016 (4) KLT 462) and Tenny Devassy v. State of Kerala decided on 13/7/2015 in O.T.Revision No.98/2012 wherein it has been held that any reimbursement of price received by a dealer is liable to be included in his turnover whereas the discount allowed to the customer and shown separately is liable to be excluded. It was held that the amount received by the assessee towards reimbursement of the balance price, though called reimbursement of discount, is a payment in reimbursement of balance of the price attracting Explanation VII to section 2(lii).
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - A Dominic - Full Document
1