<?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>2007 (3) TMI 687 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162744</link>
    <description>Section 47(16A) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was construed as validly permitting advance collection of tax on evasion-prone commodities to secure revenue before goods become difficult to trace. Applying a purposive interpretation, the Court held that limiting collection to post-sale stages would defeat the statutory object, so the connected circulars were only an implementation of the statutory power and not a fresh levy. The delegation to the Commissioner to identify evasion-prone commodities was upheld as supported by adequate legislative guidance, with a rational nexus to preventing tax evasion. The challenges based on excessive delegation and constitutional invalidity under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265 and 301 were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 687 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162744</link>
      <description>Section 47(16A) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was construed as validly permitting advance collection of tax on evasion-prone commodities to secure revenue before goods become difficult to trace. Applying a purposive interpretation, the Court held that limiting collection to post-sale stages would defeat the statutory object, so the connected circulars were only an implementation of the statutory power and not a fresh levy. The delegation to the Commissioner to identify evasion-prone commodities was upheld as supported by adequate legislative guidance, with a rational nexus to preventing tax evasion. The challenges based on excessive delegation and constitutional invalidity under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265 and 301 were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>