<?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 (1) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162792</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the demand notice issued by the assessing authority, emphasizing that once an assessee voluntarily opts for a particular tax payment scheme, they are bound by that choice and cannot withdraw from it at a later stage. The court dismissed the writ appeal, concluding that the assessee was obligated to pay the tax as per the demand notice, rejecting the contention that the increase to 200% was illegal or against the compounding scheme of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:50:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162792</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the demand notice issued by the assessing authority, emphasizing that once an assessee voluntarily opts for a particular tax payment scheme, they are bound by that choice and cannot withdraw from it at a later stage. The court dismissed the writ appeal, concluding that the assessee was obligated to pay the tax as per the demand notice, rejecting the contention that the increase to 200% was illegal or against the compounding scheme of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>