<?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 (8) TMI 931 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169029</link>
    <description>Floor-rate circulars for chicken and day-old chicks were held to apply only for advance tax collection in appropriate cases and not as a universal benchmark for sale price or invoice value. Intra-state transport of goods arising from a completed, tax-suffered sale could not be detained merely on an allegation of undervaluation based on that floor-rate, because interception powers are aimed at attempted evasion and penalty proceedings, not reassessment. The detaining officer could not expand the detention mechanism into an assessment function. On that basis, detention and any security deposit demanded solely by reference to the floor-rate were impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:07:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 931 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169029</link>
      <description>Floor-rate circulars for chicken and day-old chicks were held to apply only for advance tax collection in appropriate cases and not as a universal benchmark for sale price or invoice value. Intra-state transport of goods arising from a completed, tax-suffered sale could not be detained merely on an allegation of undervaluation based on that floor-rate, because interception powers are aimed at attempted evasion and penalty proceedings, not reassessment. The detaining officer could not expand the detention mechanism into an assessment function. On that basis, detention and any security deposit demanded solely by reference to the floor-rate were impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>