<?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>1987 (7) TMI 539 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154703</link>
    <description>An association of cardamom growers acting as auctioneer and agent for members was treated as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act because the statutory definition included commission agents, brokers, del credere agents and auctioneers carrying on business on behalf of principals. Turnover was therefore the aggregate sale proceeds realised by that dealer, including sales made on behalf of others, and surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 was properly levied on the full turnover already assessed in the association&#039;s hands. The members&#039; individual tax thresholds did not limit the surcharge base, and the general principle of an agent&#039;s co-extensive liability could not override the express statutory scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:00:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 539 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154703</link>
      <description>An association of cardamom growers acting as auctioneer and agent for members was treated as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act because the statutory definition included commission agents, brokers, del credere agents and auctioneers carrying on business on behalf of principals. Turnover was therefore the aggregate sale proceeds realised by that dealer, including sales made on behalf of others, and surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 was properly levied on the full turnover already assessed in the association&#039;s hands. The members&#039; individual tax thresholds did not limit the surcharge base, and the general principle of an agent&#039;s co-extensive liability could not override the express statutory scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>