<?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 716 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162920</link>
    <description>The first proviso to section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 requires the immediately preceding year&#039;s tax to be the basis for compounded tax, and that base must reflect the tax for the full year. Where a branch operated only for part of that year, the tax figure is to be computed proportionately for the period of actual . The proviso applies to business carried on both at the head office and at branches, since the provision makes no distinction between places of business. The assessee&#039;s attempt to exclude the branch from computation was rejected, and the compounding fee fixed by the assessing authority was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 716 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162920</link>
      <description>The first proviso to section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 requires the immediately preceding year&#039;s tax to be the basis for compounded tax, and that base must reflect the tax for the full year. Where a branch operated only for part of that year, the tax figure is to be computed proportionately for the period of actual . The proviso applies to business carried on both at the head office and at branches, since the provision makes no distinction between places of business. The assessee&#039;s attempt to exclude the branch from computation was rejected, and the compounding fee fixed by the assessing authority was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>