<?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 (2) TMI 307 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157606</link>
    <description>Under the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, the assessment scheme distinguished between advance assessment under rule 18 and monthly return-based self-assessment under rule 21. Where the assessee followed rule 21, the annual return had to be scrutinised after year-end, and the assessing authority could call for accounts and relevant materials to complete the final assessment under the proviso to rule 21(13). The absence of a separate final order on provisional assessments under sub-rules (8) to (10) did not bar this course, so the objection that the Revenue lacked power to proceed under the proviso had no legal basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:16:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 307 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157606</link>
      <description>Under the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, the assessment scheme distinguished between advance assessment under rule 18 and monthly return-based self-assessment under rule 21. Where the assessee followed rule 21, the annual return had to be scrutinised after year-end, and the assessing authority could call for accounts and relevant materials to complete the final assessment under the proviso to rule 21(13). The absence of a separate final order on provisional assessments under sub-rules (8) to (10) did not bar this course, so the objection that the Revenue lacked power to proceed under the proviso had no legal basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>