<?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 (2) TMI 323 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159590</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld where verification and confirmation letters showed that the receipts represented sale consideration for timber sizes supplied for loom construction, not advances or payments for contract work. As the amounts were not reflected in the accounts and the authorities found an attempt to evade tax, invocation of penalty was justified. The assessee could not rely on the setting aside of penalty for another assessment year, because that year involved materially different facts and a composite contract element requiring separate examination. The revisional affirmation was therefore correct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:03:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 323 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159590</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld where verification and confirmation letters showed that the receipts represented sale consideration for timber sizes supplied for loom construction, not advances or payments for contract work. As the amounts were not reflected in the accounts and the authorities found an attempt to evade tax, invocation of penalty was justified. The assessee could not rely on the setting aside of penalty for another assessment year, because that year involved materially different facts and a composite contract element requiring separate examination. The revisional affirmation was therefore correct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>