<?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 (7) TMI 511 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158648</link>
    <description>A revision under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act will not succeed unless the Tribunal&#039;s finding is shown to involve an error of law or to be contrary to law. Here, the Tribunal held that hiring out video cassettes passed only temporary custody to customers for viewing and did not transfer any right in the goods, relying on the nature of the transaction and earlier decisions. The High Court found no legal infirmity in that conclusion and held that the amendment argument based on section 5(1) was irrelevant because section 5(1)(iii) governed the issue. The revision was therefore not maintainable on the ground urged, and the Tribunal&#039;s view remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:54:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 511 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158648</link>
      <description>A revision under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act will not succeed unless the Tribunal&#039;s finding is shown to involve an error of law or to be contrary to law. Here, the Tribunal held that hiring out video cassettes passed only temporary custody to customers for viewing and did not transfer any right in the goods, relying on the nature of the transaction and earlier decisions. The High Court found no legal infirmity in that conclusion and held that the amendment argument based on section 5(1) was irrelevant because section 5(1)(iii) governed the issue. The revision was therefore not maintainable on the ground urged, and the Tribunal&#039;s view remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>