<?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 (9) TMI 1000 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166014</link>
    <description>Pipe laying contracts executed for the Kerala Water Authority were held to fall within Entry 15 of the Fourth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the work was essentially for laying pipelines for water supply and the trenching and related civil work was merely incidental. The residuary Entry 22 could not apply where a specific entry squarely covered the activity. The separate argument concerning construction of pump houses and water tanks was not decided, as it was not supported by findings in the revision order. The assessing authority&#039;s classification under Entry 15 was sustained and the contrary view was reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1000 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166014</link>
      <description>Pipe laying contracts executed for the Kerala Water Authority were held to fall within Entry 15 of the Fourth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the work was essentially for laying pipelines for water supply and the trenching and related civil work was merely incidental. The residuary Entry 22 could not apply where a specific entry squarely covered the activity. The separate argument concerning construction of pump houses and water tanks was not decided, as it was not supported by findings in the revision order. The assessing authority&#039;s classification under Entry 15 was sustained and the contrary view was reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>