<?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 881 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165380</link>
    <description>Section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act applied where plastic moulded chairs were sold under the assessee&#039;s brand name at the point of sale, because the factual record showed the assessee had affixed the brand, used branded presentation, and acted as the brand name holder for those sales. Registration of the brand name was not necessary for the provision to operate, and the agreement relied on by the assessee did not displace the finding that the Kerala manufacturer lacked the right to market the goods under that brand. The assessee was therefore liable to tax, the Tribunal&#039;s order was found erroneous, and the Revenue&#039;s revision succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 881 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165380</link>
      <description>Section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act applied where plastic moulded chairs were sold under the assessee&#039;s brand name at the point of sale, because the factual record showed the assessee had affixed the brand, used branded presentation, and acted as the brand name holder for those sales. Registration of the brand name was not necessary for the provision to operate, and the agreement relied on by the assessee did not displace the finding that the Kerala manufacturer lacked the right to market the goods under that brand. The assessee was therefore liable to tax, the Tribunal&#039;s order was found erroneous, and the Revenue&#039;s revision succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>