<?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>2016 (9) TMI 825 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332564</link>
    <description>Cleaning materials supplied to establishments in a Special Economic Zone did not qualify for exemption under Section 6(7)(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 because the provision was confined to building materials, industrial inputs, plant and machinery, and connected consumables used for setting up the unit or for manufacture. Form No.43 describing the items as housekeeping materials also supported denial of the exemption. Penalty under Section 67(1) was upheld where invoices were issued on a nil-tax basis despite a patent tax liability, as the conduct was treated as deliberate avoidance rather than bona fide doubt. A notice under Section 25(1) based on investigation material was held to be jurisdictionally valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 825 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332564</link>
      <description>Cleaning materials supplied to establishments in a Special Economic Zone did not qualify for exemption under Section 6(7)(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 because the provision was confined to building materials, industrial inputs, plant and machinery, and connected consumables used for setting up the unit or for manufacture. Form No.43 describing the items as housekeeping materials also supported denial of the exemption. Penalty under Section 67(1) was upheld where invoices were issued on a nil-tax basis despite a patent tax liability, as the conduct was treated as deliberate avoidance rather than bona fide doubt. A notice under Section 25(1) based on investigation material was held to be jurisdictionally valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>