REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

State Tax Officer Appellant

V/S

Leela Electric Power Services Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. [REFERRED TO]
TADAO BAHUJI VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE KHANDWA [REFERRED TO]
J K JUTE MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBAR DAYAL JAI PARKASH CHITTARMAL RAMDAYAL NATHUMALL HARIKISHAN DASS DASWANDI RAM BANARSI DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAI RAMKRISHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR IN BOTH THE APPEALLS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATIL RAGHAV NATHA [REFERRED TO]
R C TABACCO PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JAYAM & CO. VS. ASSISTANT COMNMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KARNATAKA PAWN BROKERS ASSN. [REFERRED TO]
MCP ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
MCP ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BAIJU A.A. VS. STATE TAX OFFICER WORKS CONTRACT [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal preferred by the State impugns the judgment dtd. 9/6/2020 in W.P.(C).No.11291 of 2020.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

(3.) In the appeal before us, the main contention raised by Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned senior Government Pleader, is that, while it may be a fact that the notice, to the extent it invoked Sec. 25(1) of the KVAT Act, was barred by limitation as laid down in Baiju A.A. [supra], the same could not be said of the notice, to the extent it invoked Sec. 42(3) of the KVAT Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE TAX OFFICER Vs. LEELA ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address