<?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>1999 (3) TMI 621 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161360</link>
    <description>Furnishing Form 18 to obtain concessional sales tax under section 5(7) was held to attract penalty where the finished goods were later transferred outside the State without liability under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. The declaration operated as a statutory representation, and breach of the production-and-taxability condition justified penal action against the purchasing dealer despite the selling dealer&#039;s duty to collect tax. The maximum penalty under section 45A(1)(g) was also sustained because the revisional authority had considered the wrong declaration, repeated transactions, revenue loss and lack of bona fides, showing proper application of mind rather than arbitrariness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:48:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 621 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161360</link>
      <description>Furnishing Form 18 to obtain concessional sales tax under section 5(7) was held to attract penalty where the finished goods were later transferred outside the State without liability under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. The declaration operated as a statutory representation, and breach of the production-and-taxability condition justified penal action against the purchasing dealer despite the selling dealer&#039;s duty to collect tax. The maximum penalty under section 45A(1)(g) was also sustained because the revisional authority had considered the wrong declaration, repeated transactions, revenue loss and lack of bona fides, showing proper application of mind rather than arbitrariness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>