<?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>2003 (11) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161758</link>
    <description>A registration levy under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because it had a sufficient nexus with the regulatory function of registration and initial verification, and the turnover-based slab was not found arbitrary. An additional fee imposed on dealers already registered under the Central Sales Tax Act was struck down for want of State legislative competence in a field occupied by the Central law. The provision requiring yearly renewal on payment of the full initial registration fee was also invalid to that extent, since no corresponding service or quid pro quo was shown, though nominal renewal charges were not excluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161758</link>
      <description>A registration levy under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because it had a sufficient nexus with the regulatory function of registration and initial verification, and the turnover-based slab was not found arbitrary. An additional fee imposed on dealers already registered under the Central Sales Tax Act was struck down for want of State legislative competence in a field occupied by the Central law. The provision requiring yearly renewal on payment of the full initial registration fee was also invalid to that extent, since no corresponding service or quid pro quo was shown, though nominal renewal charges were not excluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>