<?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>1956 (12) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127643</link>
    <description>Section 11(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act was construed to require a registered dealer to remit all amounts collected by way of tax, even where the underlying levy was not legally leviable. The Court held that the obligation extended to collections made under colour of the taxing authority granted by registration, and was not confined to amounts ultimately found lawful. It further held that the sums in question were collected as sales tax under the statutory scheme, not as mere deposits, and therefore fell within the expression collected by way of tax under the Act. The writ petition failed and the impugned order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:02:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (12) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127643</link>
      <description>Section 11(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act was construed to require a registered dealer to remit all amounts collected by way of tax, even where the underlying levy was not legally leviable. The Court held that the obligation extended to collections made under colour of the taxing authority granted by registration, and was not confined to amounts ultimately found lawful. It further held that the sums in question were collected as sales tax under the statutory scheme, not as mere deposits, and therefore fell within the expression collected by way of tax under the Act. The writ petition failed and the impugned order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>