<?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 (9) TMI 623 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159930</link>
    <description>A composition dealer in gold and silver was entitled, under the exemption notification, to exclude the purchase turnover of old gold ornaments from compounded tax liability. Refixing the compounded tax by adding that excluded turnover conflicted with the express exemption in the notification, so the reassessment basis was legally unsustainable. The refixation was therefore invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:39:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 623 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159930</link>
      <description>A composition dealer in gold and silver was entitled, under the exemption notification, to exclude the purchase turnover of old gold ornaments from compounded tax liability. Refixing the compounded tax by adding that excluded turnover conflicted with the express exemption in the notification, so the reassessment basis was legally unsustainable. The refixation was therefore invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>