Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
M/S.Alukkas Jewellary vs The State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2005 cites

V.S. Jyothish Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 12 July, 1994

unamended rate of 120% of the previous year's tax for the whole year], is without any pith or substance, in so far as the amendment was brought into effect from 23.07.2001 and hence the right of the assessee to satisfy tax at the unamended compounded rate could only be upto 23.07.2001 and never beyond. It was in the said circumstance that reference was made and reliance was placed on, to the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in V.S. Jyothish Kumar and others vs. State of Kerala and others [(1994) 95 STC 527] and that of a learned Single Judge in Prakash Jewellery and another vs. State of Kerala [(2004) 12 KTR 543 (Ker.); that once a compounding application was filed and accepted, the assessee could not turn back and was liable to pay tax at the compounded rate.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Bhima Jewellery vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ... on 11 April, 2002

during the middle of the year, the assessee is not extended the said benefit and as such, it is quite reciprocal, that once the application for compounding is submitted well within time, ie. on or before the 1st of May of the relevant year, the subsequent amendment enhancing the rate of tax would have no application in the case of the appellant/assessee. Yet another point asserted by the learned counsel is that, the assessing authority had levied the AST (Additional Sales Tax), which was forbidden by virtue of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Bhima Jewellery vs. Asst.Commissioner (Assessment), Kerala and another [(2014) (22)KTR 175(SC)] to the effect that no AST is liable to be fixed or realised in the case of dealers who opt for compounding. Similar contentions are made with reference to the appellant/assessee in W.A No.1207 of 2007 as well, in relation to sustainability of the deletion of the relevant proviso under Section 7(1)(a) of the KGST Act, whereby the benefit earlier given [enabling the assessee to satisfy tax in respect of the newly opened branch at the rate of 25% of the Main Branch/premises W.A.Nos.1207 OF 2007, 1644 OF 2009 & STR. No.136 OF 2008.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - C N Nair - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax,Uttar ... vs The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd on 31 October, 1960

Reference is also made to the verdict passed by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [(1961)12 STC 182 (SC)], which involved enhancement of the rate of tax during the middle of the year. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, once an option is given, if any exemption comes to be granted W.A.Nos.1207 OF 2007, 1644 OF 2009 & STR. No.136 OF 2008.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 167 - J C Shah - Full Document
1