<?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>2008 (7) TMI 865 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163068</link>
    <description>A vehicle carrying goods through Kerala was required to obtain a transit pass at the first check-post and surrender it at the last check-post under section 30B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Failure to surrender the pass gave rise to a statutory presumption that the goods were sold within the State to evade tax, which supported penalty under section 45A. The authorities found, after considering the dealer&#039;s explanation, that the pass was not delivered at the last check-post and that the goods were sold within the State. Those concurrent factual findings were treated as not warranting interference in writ jurisdiction unless perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:24:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 865 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163068</link>
      <description>A vehicle carrying goods through Kerala was required to obtain a transit pass at the first check-post and surrender it at the last check-post under section 30B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Failure to surrender the pass gave rise to a statutory presumption that the goods were sold within the State to evade tax, which supported penalty under section 45A. The authorities found, after considering the dealer&#039;s explanation, that the pass was not delivered at the last check-post and that the goods were sold within the State. Those concurrent factual findings were treated as not warranting interference in writ jurisdiction unless perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>