<?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 (12) TMI 587 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161759</link>
    <description>Hospitals supplying medicines to patients in the course of treatment were treated as dealers because the supply was found to be a regular, continuous and integral part of hospital activity, bringing it within the statutory concepts of business, sale and turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The exemption for medical practitioners dispensing medicines from their own dispensaries was held inapplicable to organised hospitals. The amended registration fee under section 14 was upheld because it bore a reasonable relation to administrative services and was not arbitrary, excessive or a disguised tax. Enforcement against hospitals was directed prospectively from the financial year 2001-2002, with coercive steps postponed for compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 587 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161759</link>
      <description>Hospitals supplying medicines to patients in the course of treatment were treated as dealers because the supply was found to be a regular, continuous and integral part of hospital activity, bringing it within the statutory concepts of business, sale and turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The exemption for medical practitioners dispensing medicines from their own dispensaries was held inapplicable to organised hospitals. The amended registration fee under section 14 was upheld because it bore a reasonable relation to administrative services and was not arbitrary, excessive or a disguised tax. Enforcement against hospitals was directed prospectively from the financial year 2001-2002, with coercive steps postponed for compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>