<?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 (10) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159110</link>
    <description>A commission agent acting for growers and producers falls within the broad statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the definition expressly covers persons supplying or distributing goods for commission and includes commission agents. As a result, transactions carried out through that agency relationship do not escape tax merely because of their form. The turnover arising from such dealings was therefore liable to purchase tax under section 5A, and turnover tax under section 5(2A) where the prescribed turnover limit was crossed. The challenge failed because the agency character of the transactions did not take the assessee outside the tax net.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:26:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159110</link>
      <description>A commission agent acting for growers and producers falls within the broad statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the definition expressly covers persons supplying or distributing goods for commission and includes commission agents. As a result, transactions carried out through that agency relationship do not escape tax merely because of their form. The turnover arising from such dealings was therefore liable to purchase tax under section 5A, and turnover tax under section 5(2A) where the prescribed turnover limit was crossed. The challenge failed because the agency character of the transactions did not take the assessee outside the tax net.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>