<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1328 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166489</link>
    <description>Inter-State purchase of cylinders used repeatedly as capital goods for packing medical oxygen did not, by itself, make the dealer an &quot;importer&quot; for denying presumptive tax under section 6(5) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, because the term was read as covering goods brought in for trading, not for business use as capital assets. The Court also held that transport of those cylinders under form 16, though not strictly authorised under the rules, amounted only to a technical irregularity and not tax evasion; penalty under section 47(6) was therefore unsustainable. The penalty order was set aside and the levy cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1328 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166489</link>
      <description>Inter-State purchase of cylinders used repeatedly as capital goods for packing medical oxygen did not, by itself, make the dealer an &quot;importer&quot; for denying presumptive tax under section 6(5) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, because the term was read as covering goods brought in for trading, not for business use as capital assets. The Court also held that transport of those cylinders under form 16, though not strictly authorised under the rules, amounted only to a technical irregularity and not tax evasion; penalty under section 47(6) was therefore unsustainable. The penalty order was set aside and the levy cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>