<?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 (11) TMI 225 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158129</link>
    <description>A statutory exemption from turnover tax may lawfully be made subject to production of a declaration from the dealer who actually bore the tax, because the declaration is only an evidentiary and administrative condition attached to the concession. The notifications did not create any fresh tax liability; the charge arose from the parent charging provision, and the notifications merely regulated exemption within that levy. The conditions were held neither impracticable nor impossible to comply with, and non-production of the declaration did not necessarily defeat proof by other satisfactory evidence, subject to the statutory appellate process. The levy and the notifications were also upheld as constitutionally valid under Article 14 and Entry 54 of List II.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:36:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 225 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158129</link>
      <description>A statutory exemption from turnover tax may lawfully be made subject to production of a declaration from the dealer who actually bore the tax, because the declaration is only an evidentiary and administrative condition attached to the concession. The notifications did not create any fresh tax liability; the charge arose from the parent charging provision, and the notifications merely regulated exemption within that levy. The conditions were held neither impracticable nor impossible to comply with, and non-production of the declaration did not necessarily defeat proof by other satisfactory evidence, subject to the statutory appellate process. The levy and the notifications were also upheld as constitutionally valid under Article 14 and Entry 54 of List II.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>