<?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 (8) TMI 1101 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164637</link>
    <description>Sales tax arrears due from a dealer were treated as a State debt and therefore as a debt within the Insolvency Act, so insolvency proceedings seeking protection on that basis were maintainable. Protection under section 31 was confined to arrest by civil court and detention in civil prison, and did not extend to criminal prosecution or punishment for statutory offences. As the record disclosed turnover suppression, penalty proceedings, possible prosecution, and serious factual gaps including no proper disclosure of other debts or assets, no sufficient cause was shown for protection. The challenge to refusal of protection therefore failed and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2014 20:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1101 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164637</link>
      <description>Sales tax arrears due from a dealer were treated as a State debt and therefore as a debt within the Insolvency Act, so insolvency proceedings seeking protection on that basis were maintainable. Protection under section 31 was confined to arrest by civil court and detention in civil prison, and did not extend to criminal prosecution or punishment for statutory offences. As the record disclosed turnover suppression, penalty proceedings, possible prosecution, and serious factual gaps including no proper disclosure of other debts or assets, no sufficient cause was shown for protection. The challenge to refusal of protection therefore failed and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>