<?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 (10) TMI 198 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252064</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition against the petitioner, holding that he failed to comply with statutory formalities for transferring business registration to his daughter, who was conducting the business. The State&#039;s revenue recovery notices for outstanding amounts totaling Rs. 1,02,127 were upheld, with the petitioner directed to settle the dues in monthly instalments. The petitioner remained liable for tax demands and penalties as proper registration transfer formalities were not followed. The case against the daughter was left open for further review due to the lack of compliance with statutory requirements by the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 198 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252064</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition against the petitioner, holding that he failed to comply with statutory formalities for transferring business registration to his daughter, who was conducting the business. The State&#039;s revenue recovery notices for outstanding amounts totaling Rs. 1,02,127 were upheld, with the petitioner directed to settle the dues in monthly instalments. The petitioner remained liable for tax demands and penalties as proper registration transfer formalities were not followed. The case against the daughter was left open for further review due to the lack of compliance with statutory requirements by the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>