<?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>2006 (7) TMI 590 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162076</link>
    <description>Post-sale cash discount claimed through credit notes could not be deducted from turnover unless the amended statutory conditions were satisfied, including separate disclosure in the tax invoice. The Kerala VAT amendment to clause (ii) of Explanation III to section 2(lii), the new Explanation VII, and the retrospective deletion of rule 10(a) were treated as a legislative clarification and upheld as within legislative competence. The Court&#039;s reasoning emphasised the invoice-based VAT chain, the operation of input tax credit, and the effect of form No. 8, and it found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 301. The challenge to the amendments and rule deletion was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:28:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 590 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162076</link>
      <description>Post-sale cash discount claimed through credit notes could not be deducted from turnover unless the amended statutory conditions were satisfied, including separate disclosure in the tax invoice. The Kerala VAT amendment to clause (ii) of Explanation III to section 2(lii), the new Explanation VII, and the retrospective deletion of rule 10(a) were treated as a legislative clarification and upheld as within legislative competence. The Court&#039;s reasoning emphasised the invoice-based VAT chain, the operation of input tax credit, and the effect of form No. 8, and it found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 301. The challenge to the amendments and rule deletion was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>