<?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 (7) TMI 640 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163719</link>
    <description>Fiscal concessions under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act required strict compliance with the prescribed statutory conditions. Compounding benefit was unavailable where the dealer failed to file the application in the prescribed form within the required procedure and time, so payment could not be treated as compounded tax. Second sale exemption on granite chips, jelly and metals failed because proof that the goods had already suffered tax was not produced as required by the Rules. Exemption for crushed metals was also denied because the goods were produced by mechanical crushing, contrary to the condition in entry 33 of the Third Schedule. The claims for compounding and exemption were therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:03:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 640 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163719</link>
      <description>Fiscal concessions under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act required strict compliance with the prescribed statutory conditions. Compounding benefit was unavailable where the dealer failed to file the application in the prescribed form within the required procedure and time, so payment could not be treated as compounded tax. Second sale exemption on granite chips, jelly and metals failed because proof that the goods had already suffered tax was not produced as required by the Rules. Exemption for crushed metals was also denied because the goods were produced by mechanical crushing, contrary to the condition in entry 33 of the Third Schedule. The claims for compounding and exemption were therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>