Back
S.V. BHATTI, VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ
M/S.CHEERANS STRUCTURALS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WORKS CONTRACT) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ambiguity in tax provisions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legislative intent in tax structures (Para 3 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments for discrimination in tax (Para 4 , 7) |
| 4. court's dismissal of the appeal (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.710/2015,1013/2015, 1376/2018,, 824/2015, 875/2015, 882/2015, 1005/2015, 1006/2015]
S.V.BHATTI,J.
Appellants are the petitioners in the in W.P.(C) No.24838/2013 and batch of cases. The writ appeals are filed against the judgment dated 20.12.2014 raise a simple point on the interpretation of proviso to Section 8 (a) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act, 2003') and consider the consequential challenge to proviso to (a) as illegal, ultra virus and unconstitutional. The question of construction paving way for the alleged challenge to proviso to (a) of KVAT Act 2003 appears to be simple, but the simple question posed by the appellants reminds this Court of the following quote from the Interpretation of Statutes - 5th Edition by Vepa P. Sarathi.
The net result is that the legislative object and intent must somehow be gathered by the court. But sometimes, there is obvious ambiguity in the meaning of a statute either because of the poverty of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
