<?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>2006 (3) TMI 706 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162779</link>
    <description>Tower wagons, tree-trimming vehicles and fire tenders built on truck chassis were motor vehicles because they remained mechanically propelled road vehicles, and entry tax applied when they were used to carry mounted equipment to the site of operation. A public sector undertaking was not covered by the proviso exempting Central Government property or defence-related use, so no exemption was available. However, mounted firefighting and tree-trimming machinery was independent equipment, not accessories, so its value could not be included in the purchase value; assessment had to be confined to the chassis and cabin. Penalty was unsustainable because the dispute was bona fide.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:21:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 706 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162779</link>
      <description>Tower wagons, tree-trimming vehicles and fire tenders built on truck chassis were motor vehicles because they remained mechanically propelled road vehicles, and entry tax applied when they were used to carry mounted equipment to the site of operation. A public sector undertaking was not covered by the proviso exempting Central Government property or defence-related use, so no exemption was available. However, mounted firefighting and tree-trimming machinery was independent equipment, not accessories, so its value could not be included in the purchase value; assessment had to be confined to the chassis and cabin. Penalty was unsustainable because the dispute was bona fide.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>