<?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>2002 (9) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161551</link>
    <description>Excess tax collected by an assessee and remitted to the Government can be forfeited under section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 when it was collected in contravention of section 22(2) and (3). The proviso protects only cases where the excess amount is returned to the same person from whom it was collected before remittance; later adjustment by credit notes after remittance does not satisfy that condition. Where the assessee remitted the excess with monthly returns and did not claim refund at assessment, the assessing authority may treat the amount as liable to forfeiture. The Tribunal was therefore justified in sustaining the demand, while affected buyers may seek reimbursement under rule 31D.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:43:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161551</link>
      <description>Excess tax collected by an assessee and remitted to the Government can be forfeited under section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 when it was collected in contravention of section 22(2) and (3). The proviso protects only cases where the excess amount is returned to the same person from whom it was collected before remittance; later adjustment by credit notes after remittance does not satisfy that condition. Where the assessee remitted the excess with monthly returns and did not claim refund at assessment, the assessing authority may treat the amount as liable to forfeiture. The Tribunal was therefore justified in sustaining the demand, while affected buyers may seek reimbursement under rule 31D.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>