<?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 (6) TMI 942 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164545</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where foreign liquor transported under a valid excise permit was part of an inter-State purchase and the facts did not show an attempt to evade tax. The goods were accompanied by permits and invoices indicating concessional central sales tax, and their movement to the assessee&#039;s Kerala premises was not treated as unauthorised. Any issue about whether the goods were properly brought into stock or correctly assessed at the sale stage was left to the assessing authority, but that did not justify penalty on the facts proved. The penalty was therefore held not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:14:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 942 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164545</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where foreign liquor transported under a valid excise permit was part of an inter-State purchase and the facts did not show an attempt to evade tax. The goods were accompanied by permits and invoices indicating concessional central sales tax, and their movement to the assessee&#039;s Kerala premises was not treated as unauthorised. Any issue about whether the goods were properly brought into stock or correctly assessed at the sale stage was left to the assessing authority, but that did not justify penalty on the facts proved. The penalty was therefore held not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>