<?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 (10) TMI 878 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165114</link>
    <description>A renewal fee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld because the State had legislative competence to levy fees and the amount was not shown to be unreasonable or disproportionate to the regulatory services involved, including verification and renewal-related scrutiny. The earlier objection based on quid pro quo did not invalidate the revised levy. The Court also held that a writ filed in a representative capacity could not be maintained without proof of authorisation from the persons represented and without payment of the required court fee for each of them. The statutory renewal fee was therefore sustained, while the representative challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 878 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165114</link>
      <description>A renewal fee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld because the State had legislative competence to levy fees and the amount was not shown to be unreasonable or disproportionate to the regulatory services involved, including verification and renewal-related scrutiny. The earlier objection based on quid pro quo did not invalidate the revised levy. The Court also held that a writ filed in a representative capacity could not be maintained without proof of authorisation from the persons represented and without payment of the required court fee for each of them. The statutory renewal fee was therefore sustained, while the representative challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>