<?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 (8) TMI 1130 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263213</link>
    <description>A revisional authority cannot invoke suo motu revision to revive a matter after the reassessment period under the statute has expired; limitation on the assessing power also constrains revision, and the revisional action was therefore impermissible. On luxury tax, the levy on &quot;luxury provided in a hotel&quot; extends beyond amenities physically located inside the hotel building: services such as vehicle hire, boat hire, trekking and sightseeing, when arranged and billed by the hotel for guests, form part of the taxable luxury unless the statute specifically excludes them. The later proviso excluding certain outside services was treated as an exclusionary amendment, not a mere clarification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1130 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263213</link>
      <description>A revisional authority cannot invoke suo motu revision to revive a matter after the reassessment period under the statute has expired; limitation on the assessing power also constrains revision, and the revisional action was therefore impermissible. On luxury tax, the levy on &quot;luxury provided in a hotel&quot; extends beyond amenities physically located inside the hotel building: services such as vehicle hire, boat hire, trekking and sightseeing, when arranged and billed by the hotel for guests, form part of the taxable luxury unless the statute specifically excludes them. The later proviso excluding certain outside services was treated as an exclusionary amendment, not a mere clarification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>