<?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>1993 (4) TMI 281 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156944</link>
    <description>A conditional turnover tax exemption was upheld because the declaration requirement was integral to identifying the single taxable point in a chain of transactions, and the notifications were not invalid merely because compliance was said to be difficult. The declaration condition was not severable from the exemption, since deleting it would convert a limited concession into an unconditional one not intended by the Government. Turnover tax under section 5(2A) was also treated as a constitutionally valid levy payable monthly once the prescribed turnover limit was crossed. A demand in Form No. 14D could not be issued without an admission of liability in the returns, and such notices were quashed; however, the factual basis for the declaration could be proved by other satisfactory evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:14:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (4) TMI 281 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156944</link>
      <description>A conditional turnover tax exemption was upheld because the declaration requirement was integral to identifying the single taxable point in a chain of transactions, and the notifications were not invalid merely because compliance was said to be difficult. The declaration condition was not severable from the exemption, since deleting it would convert a limited concession into an unconditional one not intended by the Government. Turnover tax under section 5(2A) was also treated as a constitutionally valid levy payable monthly once the prescribed turnover limit was crossed. A demand in Form No. 14D could not be issued without an admission of liability in the returns, and such notices were quashed; however, the factual basis for the declaration could be proved by other satisfactory evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>