<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1167 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164254</link>
    <description>An exempted small-scale industrial unit that collected sales tax from purchasers, though not liable to pay it, could not retain the amount as an incentive. The governing exemption scheme and forfeiture provision applied to a dealer who collected tax without liability, and the form of collection, whether shown separately or embedded in the composite sale price, was immaterial. The notifications allowed retention only within the scheme&#039;s stated arrangement, which the unit had not chosen. An earlier contrary view was treated as incorrect for ignoring the controlling statutory provisions and notifications, and the collected amount was held liable to forfeiture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1167 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164254</link>
      <description>An exempted small-scale industrial unit that collected sales tax from purchasers, though not liable to pay it, could not retain the amount as an incentive. The governing exemption scheme and forfeiture provision applied to a dealer who collected tax without liability, and the form of collection, whether shown separately or embedded in the composite sale price, was immaterial. The notifications allowed retention only within the scheme&#039;s stated arrangement, which the unit had not chosen. An earlier contrary view was treated as incorrect for ignoring the controlling statutory provisions and notifications, and the collected amount was held liable to forfeiture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>