<?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 (9) TMI 466 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251440</link>
    <description>Where hostel accommodation and related amenities are supplied as a composite arrangement, the levy under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 applies if the real nature of the transaction is provision of hotel-like luxury, and separate agreements or monthly billing do not alter that character. The statutory measure may be worked out by apportioning the combined charges on a room-wise, day-wise basis, and the petitioner was treated as liable to tax under the Act. For non-registration, penalty under Section 17 was justified in principle because the non-compliance was found contumacious, but the maximum penalty was considered excessive; the matter was therefore moderated in line with the revised tax liability, with reassessment directed for the earlier period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:37:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 466 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251440</link>
      <description>Where hostel accommodation and related amenities are supplied as a composite arrangement, the levy under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 applies if the real nature of the transaction is provision of hotel-like luxury, and separate agreements or monthly billing do not alter that character. The statutory measure may be worked out by apportioning the combined charges on a room-wise, day-wise basis, and the petitioner was treated as liable to tax under the Act. For non-registration, penalty under Section 17 was justified in principle because the non-compliance was found contumacious, but the maximum penalty was considered excessive; the matter was therefore moderated in line with the revised tax liability, with reassessment directed for the earlier period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>