<?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>1958 (7) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127855</link>
    <description>Section 19(b) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act was analysed as authorising only a recovery mechanism for specified tax arrears, to be enforced as if they were a fine, and not as creating a separate sentence of fine or permitting default imprisonment. Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code was treated as inapplicable unless a valid fine had first been imposed, and it could not be used to convert tax arrears into an additional penal sentence where the statute limited punishment for the offence. A direction for imprisonment in default of payment was therefore beyond jurisdiction, while recovery of the arrears under the statutory process remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:57:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (7) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127855</link>
      <description>Section 19(b) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act was analysed as authorising only a recovery mechanism for specified tax arrears, to be enforced as if they were a fine, and not as creating a separate sentence of fine or permitting default imprisonment. Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code was treated as inapplicable unless a valid fine had first been imposed, and it could not be used to convert tax arrears into an additional penal sentence where the statute limited punishment for the offence. A direction for imprisonment in default of payment was therefore beyond jurisdiction, while recovery of the arrears under the statutory process remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>