<?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>2010 (10) TMI 952 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164880</link>
    <description>Delayed payment of Central sales tax attracted interest because Section 9(2B) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 incorporates the State law provisions on due date, rate, assessment and collection of interest. The concessional rate claimed in monthly returns remained contingent on later production of C forms, and failure to produce them in time made the differential tax payable. The cause of delay did not matter: interest was payable irrespective of whether the default resulted from delayed C form production or any other reason. The revisional order restoring the levy was therefore valid, and the levy of interest for delayed payment stood affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 952 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164880</link>
      <description>Delayed payment of Central sales tax attracted interest because Section 9(2B) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 incorporates the State law provisions on due date, rate, assessment and collection of interest. The concessional rate claimed in monthly returns remained contingent on later production of C forms, and failure to produce them in time made the differential tax payable. The cause of delay did not matter: interest was payable irrespective of whether the default resulted from delayed C form production or any other reason. The revisional order restoring the levy was therefore valid, and the levy of interest for delayed payment stood affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>