<?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 (8) TMI 670 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162747</link>
    <description>Section 17(5A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is described as a penalty provision linked to the special reassessment procedure under section 17(4), designed to deter abuse of the simplified assessment facility. Dealers using that mechanism are treated as a distinct class, and the differential penalty is supported by the objective of protecting revenue and preventing tax evasion. The provision is characterised as a strict-liability penalty, so the absence of discretion in the prescribed penalty does not render it arbitrary. Mens rea is not treated as a necessary ingredient unless the statute expressly requires it, and the expropriatory challenge was not examined for lack of factual basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:16:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 670 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162747</link>
      <description>Section 17(5A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is described as a penalty provision linked to the special reassessment procedure under section 17(4), designed to deter abuse of the simplified assessment facility. Dealers using that mechanism are treated as a distinct class, and the differential penalty is supported by the objective of protecting revenue and preventing tax evasion. The provision is characterised as a strict-liability penalty, so the absence of discretion in the prescribed penalty does not render it arbitrary. Mens rea is not treated as a necessary ingredient unless the statute expressly requires it, and the expropriatory challenge was not examined for lack of factual basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>