<?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>1999 (7) TMI 658 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162374</link>
    <description>G.I. pipes and fittings were not covered by the Second Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for assessment year 1994-95, because the entry was introduced only by the Finance Act, 1995 after earlier omission; the concessional 4% rate for declared goods was therefore unavailable. Sales made exclusively to the Kerala Water Authority also did not qualify for reduction under S.R.O. No. 1728 of 1993, because the notification applied only to Government departments and specified entities, and a statutory corporation with separate corporate identity is not a Government department merely because it may be treated as State under Article 12. The concession claim failed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:26:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 658 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162374</link>
      <description>G.I. pipes and fittings were not covered by the Second Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for assessment year 1994-95, because the entry was introduced only by the Finance Act, 1995 after earlier omission; the concessional 4% rate for declared goods was therefore unavailable. Sales made exclusively to the Kerala Water Authority also did not qualify for reduction under S.R.O. No. 1728 of 1993, because the notification applied only to Government departments and specified entities, and a statutory corporation with separate corporate identity is not a Government department merely because it may be treated as State under Article 12. The concession claim failed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>