<?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 629 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159653</link>
    <description>A delayed challenge to tax notices may be rejected on laches where the writ petition is filed after an inordinate, unexplained lapse of time. The commentary also states that the registration fee exemption under section 13(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is confined to the specified rationed articles, and authorised wholesale dealers in other rationed articles cannot extend that benefit to themselves. That statutory distinction was treated as a conscious legislative classification, so denial of the exemption was not discriminatory. On that basis, the notices demanding additional registration fee were upheld and the petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:51:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 629 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159653</link>
      <description>A delayed challenge to tax notices may be rejected on laches where the writ petition is filed after an inordinate, unexplained lapse of time. The commentary also states that the registration fee exemption under section 13(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is confined to the specified rationed articles, and authorised wholesale dealers in other rationed articles cannot extend that benefit to themselves. That statutory distinction was treated as a conscious legislative classification, so denial of the exemption was not discriminatory. On that basis, the notices demanding additional registration fee were upheld and the petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>