<?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>1966 (7) TMI 63 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144141</link>
    <description>An express saving and deeming provision in the repealing sales tax statute preserved arrears under the old law, so prosecutions and convictions for tax default could proceed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. A transfer made before formal payment became due could still amount to fraudulent evasion where liability had already accrued and the assessee acted to defeat recovery. The specific offence of fraudulent evasion under section 46(2)(c) was upheld, but the overlapping conviction for wilful non-payment under section 46(1)(f) could not stand because the specific provision subsumed the general offence for the same default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:12:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (7) TMI 63 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144141</link>
      <description>An express saving and deeming provision in the repealing sales tax statute preserved arrears under the old law, so prosecutions and convictions for tax default could proceed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. A transfer made before formal payment became due could still amount to fraudulent evasion where liability had already accrued and the assessee acted to defeat recovery. The specific offence of fraudulent evasion under section 46(2)(c) was upheld, but the overlapping conviction for wilful non-payment under section 46(1)(f) could not stand because the specific provision subsumed the general offence for the same default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>