<?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>2012 (2) TMI 448 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167851</link>
    <description>An assessee who elected statutory compounding under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not later abandon that election and seek turnover-based assessment merely because the compounding application mentioned a lower percentage than the amended statutory rate. The application had to be treated as one made under the statute at the applicable compounded rate, and the assessee&#039;s mistake in stating the rate did not displace the statutory scheme. Interest on the enhanced tax demand was nevertheless disallowed for the period identified, because no timely order had been passed on the compounding request, monthly returns had been accepted without verification, and the earlier appellate order had remained operative for some time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 448 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167851</link>
      <description>An assessee who elected statutory compounding under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not later abandon that election and seek turnover-based assessment merely because the compounding application mentioned a lower percentage than the amended statutory rate. The application had to be treated as one made under the statute at the applicable compounded rate, and the assessee&#039;s mistake in stating the rate did not displace the statutory scheme. Interest on the enhanced tax demand was nevertheless disallowed for the period identified, because no timely order had been passed on the compounding request, monthly returns had been accepted without verification, and the earlier appellate order had remained operative for some time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>