<?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>2013 (4) TMI 169 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221973</link>
    <description>Section 15B of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was a special benefit confined to unregistered dealers who voluntarily applied for registration within the notified period, allowing registration from the commencement of business and corresponding input tax credit. A dealer already registered before the provision came into force was not similarly situated to the intended beneficiaries and could not claim the extended credit for the pre-registration period. The legislative cut-off date in a beneficial scheme was permissible absent proof of arbitrariness, and no material was shown to establish constitutional discrimination under Article 14. The petitioner therefore failed to obtain the extended benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 169 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221973</link>
      <description>Section 15B of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was a special benefit confined to unregistered dealers who voluntarily applied for registration within the notified period, allowing registration from the commencement of business and corresponding input tax credit. A dealer already registered before the provision came into force was not similarly situated to the intended beneficiaries and could not claim the extended credit for the pre-registration period. The legislative cut-off date in a beneficial scheme was permissible absent proof of arbitrariness, and no material was shown to establish constitutional discrimination under Article 14. The petitioner therefore failed to obtain the extended benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>