<?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 (5) TMI 881 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164547</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption for a building on leased land depended on a registered lease and construction of the building after that registration, while co-ownership had to be distinguished from a pure lease arrangement. The text notes that the petitioner&#039;s application predated the later amendment to the exemption condition, but the record did not establish an absolute right over the property because release deeds from the other co-owners were not shown. The petitioner was directed to produce proof of absolute title through the necessary release deeds or other material, and the exemption claim was to be reconsidered afresh in light of those observations and the earlier legal position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2014 20:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 881 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164547</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption for a building on leased land depended on a registered lease and construction of the building after that registration, while co-ownership had to be distinguished from a pure lease arrangement. The text notes that the petitioner&#039;s application predated the later amendment to the exemption condition, but the record did not establish an absolute right over the property because release deeds from the other co-owners were not shown. The petitioner was directed to produce proof of absolute title through the necessary release deeds or other material, and the exemption claim was to be reconsidered afresh in light of those observations and the earlier legal position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>