<?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>1999 (2) TMI 628 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159639</link>
    <description>Section 23(3A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid fiscal provision requiring interest on tax arrears to continue running during periods of stay, because interest on unpaid tax is a statutory liability and the classification serves the legitimate revenue purpose of preventing delay. The provision was also held applicable to pending demands, since it does not create a new liability but regulates the period for which existing interest continues to accrue. The court found no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and rejected arguments that the provision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or impermissibly retrospective. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:22:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 628 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159639</link>
      <description>Section 23(3A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid fiscal provision requiring interest on tax arrears to continue running during periods of stay, because interest on unpaid tax is a statutory liability and the classification serves the legitimate revenue purpose of preventing delay. The provision was also held applicable to pending demands, since it does not create a new liability but regulates the period for which existing interest continues to accrue. The court found no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and rejected arguments that the provision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or impermissibly retrospective. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>