<?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>1996 (11) TMI 355 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104102</link>
    <description>An optional composition scheme for works contracts under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid simplified method of tax computation because a contractor could choose whether to opt in or remain under regular assessment. The Court treated the scheme as a rough and ready assessment mechanism, not an unconstitutional levy on the entire contract value, and regarded the incidental provisions as ancillary to that option. Rule 22A was upheld as machinery for securing tax due, and Rule 30A was upheld as procedural regulation for exercising the option. The challenge failed, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the State&#039;s appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2014 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 355 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104102</link>
      <description>An optional composition scheme for works contracts under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid simplified method of tax computation because a contractor could choose whether to opt in or remain under regular assessment. The Court treated the scheme as a rough and ready assessment mechanism, not an unconstitutional levy on the entire contract value, and regarded the incidental provisions as ancillary to that option. Rule 22A was upheld as machinery for securing tax due, and Rule 30A was upheld as procedural regulation for exercising the option. The challenge failed, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the State&#039;s appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>