<?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>2004 (9) TMI 607 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161831</link>
    <description>Section 45B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was upheld as a deterrent measure against tax evasion, not as an impermissible regulation of carriage of goods. The Court treated the penalty on transporters for carrying goods without prescribed documents as within the State&#039;s sales tax competence and found no inconsistency with the Contract Act or the Carriers Act. It also rejected the double-penalty argument, holding that transporter liability under section 45B and owner-related action under section 29A operated in different fields. The enhanced detention consequence for repeated offences was likewise upheld as a legitimate anti-evasion measure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 607 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161831</link>
      <description>Section 45B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was upheld as a deterrent measure against tax evasion, not as an impermissible regulation of carriage of goods. The Court treated the penalty on transporters for carrying goods without prescribed documents as within the State&#039;s sales tax competence and found no inconsistency with the Contract Act or the Carriers Act. It also rejected the double-penalty argument, holding that transporter liability under section 45B and owner-related action under section 29A operated in different fields. The enhanced detention consequence for repeated offences was likewise upheld as a legitimate anti-evasion measure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>