<?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 609 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161839</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for ready-made garments was construed harmoniously so that the reference to total turnover and the proviso on taxability were read consistently with the prescribed turnover limit. The Kerala HC treated the condition on the year in which turnover first crossed the threshold as applying to the initial crossing year, and not as barring the benefit in later years within the notified exemption period. On that reading, exemption remained available up to the prescribed limit during the notified period, and reassessment orders denying the benefit were unsustainable. The impugned reassessment orders were set aside, with fresh orders to be passed in line with the clarified legal position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:52:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 609 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161839</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for ready-made garments was construed harmoniously so that the reference to total turnover and the proviso on taxability were read consistently with the prescribed turnover limit. The Kerala HC treated the condition on the year in which turnover first crossed the threshold as applying to the initial crossing year, and not as barring the benefit in later years within the notified exemption period. On that reading, exemption remained available up to the prescribed limit during the notified period, and reassessment orders denying the benefit were unsustainable. The impugned reassessment orders were set aside, with fresh orders to be passed in line with the clarified legal position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>