<?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>1996 (4) TMI 456 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158295</link>
    <description>Rubber cess was treated as outside taxable turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act where the earlier Full Bench view on the same assessee applied. The text also explains that, absent any statutory provision for set-off, tax allegedly collected by a selling dealer on reclaimed rubber cannot be adjusted against the purchaser&#039;s liability; the proper remedy is a refund claim if the amount was remitted to the Government. On classification, the documentary trail of orders, invoices, forms and waybills supported treatment of the rubber purchases as inter-State transactions, and routing payment through a local unit was not decisive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:09:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=332854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 456 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158295</link>
      <description>Rubber cess was treated as outside taxable turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act where the earlier Full Bench view on the same assessee applied. The text also explains that, absent any statutory provision for set-off, tax allegedly collected by a selling dealer on reclaimed rubber cannot be adjusted against the purchaser&#039;s liability; the proper remedy is a refund claim if the amount was remitted to the Government. On classification, the documentary trail of orders, invoices, forms and waybills supported treatment of the rubber purchases as inter-State transactions, and routing payment through a local unit was not decisive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>