<?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 (4) TMI 681 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163116</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act from the due date of filing returns. The court found that the assessee&#039;s failure to comply with statutory requirements by claiming a concessional tax rate without necessary declarations triggered the interest liability. The court distinguished the case from Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, emphasizing that interest could be levied for non-compliance even if returns were filed. The tax revision petition was rejected, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 681 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163116</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act from the due date of filing returns. The court found that the assessee&#039;s failure to comply with statutory requirements by claiming a concessional tax rate without necessary declarations triggered the interest liability. The court distinguished the case from Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, emphasizing that interest could be levied for non-compliance even if returns were filed. The tax revision petition was rejected, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>