<?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>2014 (7) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249239</link>
    <description>Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act permits detention on reasonable suspicion and penalty where inquiry shows an attempt to evade tax. The article notes that later accounting of the transaction after interception did not displace an inference of evasion where the consignor was not authorised to trade in excavators and had not disclosed the purchase earlier. It also explains that ownership of the excavator was assessed under the Sale of Goods Act and surrounding circumstances, including advance payment, bank finance, and transport records. On those facts, collusion between consignor and consignee supported penalty against the consignee as owner, while the bank and release pleas failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249239</link>
      <description>Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act permits detention on reasonable suspicion and penalty where inquiry shows an attempt to evade tax. The article notes that later accounting of the transaction after interception did not displace an inference of evasion where the consignor was not authorised to trade in excavators and had not disclosed the purchase earlier. It also explains that ownership of the excavator was assessed under the Sale of Goods Act and surrounding circumstances, including advance payment, bank finance, and transport records. On those facts, collusion between consignor and consignee supported penalty against the consignee as owner, while the bank and release pleas failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>