<?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>1960 (4) TMI 61 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128321</link>
    <description>Section 8 of the General Sales Tax Act granted a rebate on sales of notified finished industrial articles actually delivered outside the State, subject to the prescribed conditions and registration requirements, and the rebate was to be worked out at final assessment. Section 11(2), requiring tax collections in excess of tax paid to be remitted to the Government, was treated as a general rule against retaining tax collected for one&#039;s own benefit. That general remittance obligation did not override the specific rebate conferred by section 8, because the rebate was intended to encourage the prescribed sales and deliveries and would be frustrated if denied after compliance. A compliant dealer could therefore claim the rebate despite having collected amounts as tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 61 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128321</link>
      <description>Section 8 of the General Sales Tax Act granted a rebate on sales of notified finished industrial articles actually delivered outside the State, subject to the prescribed conditions and registration requirements, and the rebate was to be worked out at final assessment. Section 11(2), requiring tax collections in excess of tax paid to be remitted to the Government, was treated as a general rule against retaining tax collected for one&#039;s own benefit. That general remittance obligation did not override the specific rebate conferred by section 8, because the rebate was intended to encourage the prescribed sales and deliveries and would be frustrated if denied after compliance. A compliant dealer could therefore claim the rebate despite having collected amounts as tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>