<?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 668 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251642</link>
    <description>Failure to file monthly returns and remit collected tax was treated as conduct falling within Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, which permits penalty up to twice the tax sought to be evaded. The default was not regarded as a mere technical lapse because the tax collected from customers had not been paid over to the State even after notice. Financial stringency and closure of the establishment were not accepted as sufficient grounds to avoid the statutory penalty, and the revisional authority&#039;s reduction of the penalty to the amount of tax due was considered already lenient. No further reduction was warranted, with only limited relief indicated in respect of penal interest on timely compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 668 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251642</link>
      <description>Failure to file monthly returns and remit collected tax was treated as conduct falling within Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, which permits penalty up to twice the tax sought to be evaded. The default was not regarded as a mere technical lapse because the tax collected from customers had not been paid over to the State even after notice. Financial stringency and closure of the establishment were not accepted as sufficient grounds to avoid the statutory penalty, and the revisional authority&#039;s reduction of the penalty to the amount of tax due was considered already lenient. No further reduction was warranted, with only limited relief indicated in respect of penal interest on timely compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>