<?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>2010 (9) TMI 1105 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179226</link>
    <description>A notice proposing cancellation of compounding permission under the Kerala Value Added Tax regime was challenged on the basis that the transaction was allegedly only a supply of red earth, not a works contract. The writ court did not decide the merits of the proposed withdrawal and held that the objection must first be examined by the assessing authority, which must consider the petitioner&#039;s response and afford a personal hearing before taking a decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:09:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1105 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179226</link>
      <description>A notice proposing cancellation of compounding permission under the Kerala Value Added Tax regime was challenged on the basis that the transaction was allegedly only a supply of red earth, not a works contract. The writ court did not decide the merits of the proposed withdrawal and held that the objection must first be examined by the assessing authority, which must consider the petitioner&#039;s response and afford a personal hearing before taking a decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>