<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1163 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180354</link>
    <description>The Kerala Finance Act, 2007 amendments to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, including Article 5(c), the provisos to Articles 21 and 22, and Article 44(f), were described as anti-evasion measures directed at builder-buyer arrangements, sale agreements for undivided shares in land, construction agreements, and related powers of attorney used to structure transfers and reduce stamp duty. The analysis states that fiscal legislation enjoys wide latitude, and that provisions levying duty on instruments falling within the targeted mischief are valid if they remain within the State&#039;s taxing competence. It further notes that mere inconvenience, crudity, or perceived inequity does not by itself invalidate such legislation, and that the amendments were said not to offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1163 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180354</link>
      <description>The Kerala Finance Act, 2007 amendments to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, including Article 5(c), the provisos to Articles 21 and 22, and Article 44(f), were described as anti-evasion measures directed at builder-buyer arrangements, sale agreements for undivided shares in land, construction agreements, and related powers of attorney used to structure transfers and reduce stamp duty. The analysis states that fiscal legislation enjoys wide latitude, and that provisions levying duty on instruments falling within the targeted mischief are valid if they remain within the State&#039;s taxing competence. It further notes that mere inconvenience, crudity, or perceived inequity does not by itself invalidate such legislation, and that the amendments were said not to offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>