<?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>1988 (6) TMI 324 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155952</link>
    <description>Recovery of sales tax arrears from an employee&#039;s salary under section 25 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was confined to the extent protected from attachment under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court treated the recovery direction as permitting only a reasonable monthly deduction and not depriving the employee of the whole salary. It applied the principle reflected in the proviso to section 226(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that salary exempt from attachment in execution of a civil decree remains protected from tax recovery. The employee&#039;s salary therefore remained subject only to the limits recognised by section 60 CPC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:06:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (6) TMI 324 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155952</link>
      <description>Recovery of sales tax arrears from an employee&#039;s salary under section 25 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was confined to the extent protected from attachment under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court treated the recovery direction as permitting only a reasonable monthly deduction and not depriving the employee of the whole salary. It applied the principle reflected in the proviso to section 226(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that salary exempt from attachment in execution of a civil decree remains protected from tax recovery. The employee&#039;s salary therefore remained subject only to the limits recognised by section 60 CPC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>