<?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>2003 (11) TMI 575 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162380</link>
    <description>Movement of goods from Kerala to Bombay was treated as an inter-State sale because the contract and surrounding terms showed the despatch was occasioned by the sale, and the dealer failed to prove a true stock transfer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The higher rate of tax on turnover not supported by C/D declarations was upheld under the Act and the sales tax notification. The ancillary-units claim under the later Government Order was remitted for fresh consideration by the assessing authority. Tax on transfer of fixed assets, including furniture, fixtures and office equipment, was also sustained for want of contrary evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:52:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 575 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162380</link>
      <description>Movement of goods from Kerala to Bombay was treated as an inter-State sale because the contract and surrounding terms showed the despatch was occasioned by the sale, and the dealer failed to prove a true stock transfer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The higher rate of tax on turnover not supported by C/D declarations was upheld under the Act and the sales tax notification. The ancillary-units claim under the later Government Order was remitted for fresh consideration by the assessing authority. Tax on transfer of fixed assets, including furniture, fixtures and office equipment, was also sustained for want of contrary evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>