<?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 (11) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162808</link>
    <description>The court upheld the classification and tax rate of 12.5% for mosquito repellents and related devices under serial number 66 of S.R.O. No. 82 of 2006. The court also set aside the penalty imposed on the company for filing untrue returns, stating that there was no deliberate intent to evade taxes. The company was given the opportunity to file objections if authorities intended to impose a penalty in the future.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:05:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162808</link>
      <description>The court upheld the classification and tax rate of 12.5% for mosquito repellents and related devices under serial number 66 of S.R.O. No. 82 of 2006. The court also set aside the penalty imposed on the company for filing untrue returns, stating that there was no deliberate intent to evade taxes. The company was given the opportunity to file objections if authorities intended to impose a penalty in the future.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>