<?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>2005 (3) TMI 740 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162634</link>
    <description>The second proviso to section 5(1)(v) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid special levy on Fifth Schedule goods, making a registered dealer liable on the last sale irrespective of turnover. The court held that registered and unregistered dealers are not similarly placed for tax purposes because registration carries distinct rights and obligations, including tax collection and statutory forms. It also found that the Legislature may prescribe a special point and rate of taxation for specified goods as a matter of fiscal policy. The constitutional challenge failed, and the revised assessments and appellate order were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 740 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162634</link>
      <description>The second proviso to section 5(1)(v) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid special levy on Fifth Schedule goods, making a registered dealer liable on the last sale irrespective of turnover. The court held that registered and unregistered dealers are not similarly placed for tax purposes because registration carries distinct rights and obligations, including tax collection and statutory forms. It also found that the Legislature may prescribe a special point and rate of taxation for specified goods as a matter of fiscal policy. The constitutional challenge failed, and the revised assessments and appellate order were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>