<?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>2015 (3) TMI 177 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257241</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where the assessee disclosed the full turnover in its return and claimed exemption on a bona fide understanding of the law governing brand-name sales. The court noted that the legal position on which of two permitted users would be treated as the brand-name holder had remained unsettled when the return was filed, and that penalty requires deliberate defiance, contumacious conduct, dishonest intent, or conscious disregard of statutory duty. A mere exemption claim, later examined in assessment, was not enough to establish an untrue return or evasion. The penalty order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 177 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257241</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where the assessee disclosed the full turnover in its return and claimed exemption on a bona fide understanding of the law governing brand-name sales. The court noted that the legal position on which of two permitted users would be treated as the brand-name holder had remained unsettled when the return was filed, and that penalty requires deliberate defiance, contumacious conduct, dishonest intent, or conscious disregard of statutory duty. A mere exemption claim, later examined in assessment, was not enough to establish an untrue return or evasion. The penalty order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>