<?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 971 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332710</link>
    <description>Rectification rejection was unsustainable where the assessing authority failed to consider the assessee&#039;s specific objection that unsold apartment units were not subject to a works contract because no agreement with purchasers existed for those units. The court noted the governing principle that construction activity becomes a works contract only from the stage of a contract with the flat purchaser. Ignoring a relevant objection already on record was not a mere merits dispute but an error apparent on the face of the record. The rectification rejection was set aside, the application was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law, and recovery was kept in abeyance meanwhile.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 971 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332710</link>
      <description>Rectification rejection was unsustainable where the assessing authority failed to consider the assessee&#039;s specific objection that unsold apartment units were not subject to a works contract because no agreement with purchasers existed for those units. The court noted the governing principle that construction activity becomes a works contract only from the stage of a contract with the flat purchaser. Ignoring a relevant objection already on record was not a mere merits dispute but an error apparent on the face of the record. The rectification rejection was set aside, the application was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law, and recovery was kept in abeyance meanwhile.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>