<?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 by a person in charge of a shop to produce a notebook found on the premises obstructs an authorised sales tax inspection where it prevents examination of business accounts and documents; physical force is unnecessary. Records found at business premises during business hours may be treated as business-related unless the dealer rebuts that position. A bare claim that a notebook contains private accounts does not defeat the duty to produce it, because the inspecting officer must be able to determine whether its entries concern the business. The refusal was treated as obstruction, and 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 by a person in charge of a shop to produce a notebook found on the premises obstructs an authorised sales tax inspection where it prevents examination of business accounts and documents; physical force is unnecessary. Records found at business premises during business hours may be treated as business-related unless the dealer rebuts that position. A bare claim that a notebook contains private accounts does not defeat the duty to produce it, because the inspecting officer must be able to determine whether its entries concern the business. The refusal was treated as obstruction, and 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>