<?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>1998 (11) TMI 617 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159698</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act was held prospective only because the Act did not authorise retrospective exemption and the notification did not state otherwise; exemption was therefore unavailable for earlier entries. The petitioner also failed to satisfy the conditional exemption requirement that the manufactured product be liable to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, since the findings showed substantial export of the product. Penalty for non-filing of returns and non-payment of entry tax was sustained because the conduct was treated as intentional rather than bona fide, and wilful evasion was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:12:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 617 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159698</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act was held prospective only because the Act did not authorise retrospective exemption and the notification did not state otherwise; exemption was therefore unavailable for earlier entries. The petitioner also failed to satisfy the conditional exemption requirement that the manufactured product be liable to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, since the findings showed substantial export of the product. Penalty for non-filing of returns and non-payment of entry tax was sustained because the conduct was treated as intentional rather than bona fide, and wilful evasion was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>