<?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 (3) TMI 320 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156971</link>
    <description>Section 7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act permits compounding only as a substitute method for collecting sales tax on arrack turnover, not as an exemption from other distinct fiscal levies. The compounded amount remains sales tax in substance, and surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act and turnover tax under section 5(2A) continue to apply unless the statute expressly excludes them. The provision merely replaces full turnover-based assessment with a notional lump-sum computation and does not absorb separate statutory imposts. The challenge to the additional demands therefore failed, and the impugned surcharge and turnover tax liabilities were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:22:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 320 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156971</link>
      <description>Section 7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act permits compounding only as a substitute method for collecting sales tax on arrack turnover, not as an exemption from other distinct fiscal levies. The compounded amount remains sales tax in substance, and surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act and turnover tax under section 5(2A) continue to apply unless the statute expressly excludes them. The provision merely replaces full turnover-based assessment with a notional lump-sum computation and does not absorb separate statutory imposts. The challenge to the additional demands therefore failed, and the impugned surcharge and turnover tax liabilities were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>