<?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>1957 (12) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127722</link>
    <description>Refusal to produce a notebook found at business premises amounted to obstruction of an authorised sales tax inspection where the officer had statutory power to enter the shop, require production of accounts and documents relating to the business, and inspect records kept in the ordinary course of business. The court held that effective obstruction was sufficient for liability under section 15(c); physical force was not required. It also held that a dealer could not resist inspection by a bare claim that the notebook contained private accounts, because documents found on the premises during business hours could be required for production so the officer could determine whether they related to the business. The conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:52:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (12) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127722</link>
      <description>Refusal to produce a notebook found at business premises amounted to obstruction of an authorised sales tax inspection where the officer had statutory power to enter the shop, require production of accounts and documents relating to the business, and inspect records kept in the ordinary course of business. The court held that effective obstruction was sufficient for liability under section 15(c); physical force was not required. It also held that a dealer could not resist inspection by a bare claim that the notebook contained private accounts, because documents found on the premises during business hours could be required for production so the officer could determine whether they related to the business. The conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>