<?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 (9) TMI 588 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159208</link>
    <description>Transport of goods without accompanying records justified conversion of the security deposit into penalty under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the assessing authority found reason to suspect tax evasion and rejected the delivery note as suspicious. The concurrent factual findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal supported the conclusion that the movement was unsupported by the required documents. The valuation fixed for the goods was also left undisturbed, as there was no evidence that the rate adopted was excessive. Exercising limited jurisdiction under section 41, the High Court found no basis to interfere with either the penalty conversion or the valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:32:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 588 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159208</link>
      <description>Transport of goods without accompanying records justified conversion of the security deposit into penalty under section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the assessing authority found reason to suspect tax evasion and rejected the delivery note as suspicious. The concurrent factual findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal supported the conclusion that the movement was unsupported by the required documents. The valuation fixed for the goods was also left undisturbed, as there was no evidence that the rate adopted was excessive. Exercising limited jurisdiction under section 41, the High Court found no basis to interfere with either the penalty conversion or the valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>