<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (8) TMI 302 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102965</link>
    <description>Commission agents are treated as dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and their turnover must be computed on aggregate dealings for surcharge purposes. Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act applies only as a percentage to the sales tax already payable by the dealer; it does not create a separate turnover basis or allow exclusion of sales made for principals whose individual turnover would not attract surcharge. Agency principles cannot override this statutory scheme, and rule 9(k) protects principals from double taxation rather than reducing the agent&#039;s surcharge liability. The surcharge was therefore correctly levied on the assessee&#039;s aggregate turnover, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 302 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102965</link>
      <description>Commission agents are treated as dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and their turnover must be computed on aggregate dealings for surcharge purposes. Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act applies only as a percentage to the sales tax already payable by the dealer; it does not create a separate turnover basis or allow exclusion of sales made for principals whose individual turnover would not attract surcharge. Agency principles cannot override this statutory scheme, and rule 9(k) protects principals from double taxation rather than reducing the agent&#039;s surcharge liability. The surcharge was therefore correctly levied on the assessee&#039;s aggregate turnover, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>