<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1348 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160957</link>
    <description>Entry tax under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 depends on actual entry of a motor vehicle into Kerala for use in the State, not on whether it was re-registered within fifteen months of its original out-of-State registration. The proviso for vehicles registered outside the State was treated as a protective measure for genuine out-of-State residents, not a means to defeat the levy. Re-registration and tax liability were held to be distinct, and sustained in-State use for business purposes brought the vehicle within the charging provision. The assessee bore the burden of showing that any entry was only casual, and the exemption was denied on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:05:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1348 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160957</link>
      <description>Entry tax under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 depends on actual entry of a motor vehicle into Kerala for use in the State, not on whether it was re-registered within fifteen months of its original out-of-State registration. The proviso for vehicles registered outside the State was treated as a protective measure for genuine out-of-State residents, not a means to defeat the levy. Re-registration and tax liability were held to be distinct, and sustained in-State use for business purposes brought the vehicle within the charging provision. The assessee bore the burden of showing that any entry was only casual, and the exemption was denied on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>