<?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 (3) TMI 730 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162289</link>
    <description>A lease arrangement for a distillery unit did not displace sales tax liability where the surrounding conduct showed the assessee continued to control the business in name and in substance. The continued registration, use of the assessee&#039;s delivery notes and C forms, common management features, and the lessee&#039;s failure to secure separate registration supported a finding that the arrangement was a device connected with tax evasion. Liability was therefore fastened on the assessee for the relevant assessment years, reflecting the real nature of the transaction and the practical continuation of business under the assessee&#039;s name. Recovery was directed to be attempted first from the lessee and then from the assessee if arrears remained unpaid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:31:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 730 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162289</link>
      <description>A lease arrangement for a distillery unit did not displace sales tax liability where the surrounding conduct showed the assessee continued to control the business in name and in substance. The continued registration, use of the assessee&#039;s delivery notes and C forms, common management features, and the lessee&#039;s failure to secure separate registration supported a finding that the arrangement was a device connected with tax evasion. Liability was therefore fastened on the assessee for the relevant assessment years, reflecting the real nature of the transaction and the practical continuation of business under the assessee&#039;s name. Recovery was directed to be attempted first from the lessee and then from the assessee if arrears remained unpaid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>