<?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 (8) TMI 557 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159902</link>
    <description>Excise duty paid by the purchaser on behalf of the manufacturer was treated as part of the sale consideration and therefore includible in the assessee&#039;s taxable turnover. The return excluding that amount was not accepted because the omission was found deliberate rather than a bona fide mistake. On that basis, penalty under section 45A was justified on merits, but the quantum was held excessive on the facts and was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:45:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 557 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159902</link>
      <description>Excise duty paid by the purchaser on behalf of the manufacturer was treated as part of the sale consideration and therefore includible in the assessee&#039;s taxable turnover. The return excluding that amount was not accepted because the omission was found deliberate rather than a bona fide mistake. On that basis, penalty under section 45A was justified on merits, but the quantum was held excessive on the facts and was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>