<?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 (2) TMI 828 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163139</link>
    <description>The concessional rate under section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was available only where the manufactured goods had suffered tax in the State. Stock transfers of substantial quantities outside Kerala without tax payment reduced revenue because tax on the raw materials was effectively saved, and the reduction of penalty failed to reflect that impact. A compensatory levy under section 45A(f) was considered warranted, particularly since delayed recovery of the differential tax and statutory interest would exceed the reduced penalty. The order reducing the penalty was therefore treated as prejudicial to the Revenue, and the Commissioner&#039;s reversal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:11:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 828 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163139</link>
      <description>The concessional rate under section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was available only where the manufactured goods had suffered tax in the State. Stock transfers of substantial quantities outside Kerala without tax payment reduced revenue because tax on the raw materials was effectively saved, and the reduction of penalty failed to reflect that impact. A compensatory levy under section 45A(f) was considered warranted, particularly since delayed recovery of the differential tax and statutory interest would exceed the reduced penalty. The order reducing the penalty was therefore treated as prejudicial to the Revenue, and the Commissioner&#039;s reversal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>