<?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>1984 (4) TMI 278 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154782</link>
    <description>Penal interest under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was treated as unrecoverable where the assessee had complied with instalment orders, stay arrangements, or other deferred-payment directions sanctioned by the Government or the court, because recovery in those circumstances was considered arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14. The same approach was applied where the demand had become unsustainable on the facts, including provisional assessments later displaced by final assessments or cases where the assessee had already paid more than the eventual liability. By contrast, where delay was only nominal and no special equitable circumstance existed, the statutory demand was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:24:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (4) TMI 278 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154782</link>
      <description>Penal interest under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was treated as unrecoverable where the assessee had complied with instalment orders, stay arrangements, or other deferred-payment directions sanctioned by the Government or the court, because recovery in those circumstances was considered arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14. The same approach was applied where the demand had become unsustainable on the facts, including provisional assessments later displaced by final assessments or cases where the assessee had already paid more than the eventual liability. By contrast, where delay was only nominal and no special equitable circumstance existed, the statutory demand was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>