<?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 (9) TMI 1116 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161591</link>
    <description>Commission agents selling goods on behalf of principals were treated as dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and were liable to turnover tax. The court read the definitions of dealer, taxable turnover, total turnover and turnover with rules 8 and 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, holding that exclusion of agent sales under rule 9(k)(ii) was available only when tax had been paid by the principal. The exemption mechanism under Notification S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 also had to be satisfied. As neither compliance nor exemption was shown, the agents could not avoid assessment, and the distinction between sale-point and purchase-point taxation was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:00:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1116 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161591</link>
      <description>Commission agents selling goods on behalf of principals were treated as dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and were liable to turnover tax. The court read the definitions of dealer, taxable turnover, total turnover and turnover with rules 8 and 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, holding that exclusion of agent sales under rule 9(k)(ii) was available only when tax had been paid by the principal. The exemption mechanism under Notification S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 also had to be satisfied. As neither compliance nor exemption was shown, the agents could not avoid assessment, and the distinction between sale-point and purchase-point taxation was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>