<?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 (12) TMI 852 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161017</link>
    <description>Forfeiture of a security deposit was not treated as taxable turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act because the record did not show that the retained amount was sale consideration. Applying the statutory definition of sale, the court noted that there was no material proving a transfer of property in goods for valuable consideration in the relevant assessment year. The surrounding correspondence and conduct indicated a loan-type arrangement, and the later appropriation of the deposit operated as liquidated damages when the materials were not returned. The prior reduction by the Tribunal also supported the view that any price had been fixed earlier, not in the year under assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:45:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 852 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161017</link>
      <description>Forfeiture of a security deposit was not treated as taxable turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act because the record did not show that the retained amount was sale consideration. Applying the statutory definition of sale, the court noted that there was no material proving a transfer of property in goods for valuable consideration in the relevant assessment year. The surrounding correspondence and conduct indicated a loan-type arrangement, and the later appropriation of the deposit operated as liquidated damages when the materials were not returned. The prior reduction by the Tribunal also supported the view that any price had been fixed earlier, not in the year under assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>