<?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 (11) TMI 1264 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335246</link>
    <description>The article notes that a writ petition may still be entertained despite an available statutory appellate remedy where the matter has remained pending after admission with interim protection, and the alternative-remedy objection need not defeat the petition in those circumstances. It also states that a penalty provision conferring discretion up to a statutory maximum does not require automatic imposition of the maximum; authorities must assess culpability, surrounding circumstances, and mitigating factors. On the facts described, the reduced penalty was sustained because relevant mitigating material was not properly weighed, although complete exoneration was not warranted due to the post-interception document.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1264 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335246</link>
      <description>The article notes that a writ petition may still be entertained despite an available statutory appellate remedy where the matter has remained pending after admission with interim protection, and the alternative-remedy objection need not defeat the petition in those circumstances. It also states that a penalty provision conferring discretion up to a statutory maximum does not require automatic imposition of the maximum; authorities must assess culpability, surrounding circumstances, and mitigating factors. On the facts described, the reduced penalty was sustained because relevant mitigating material was not properly weighed, although complete exoneration was not warranted due to the post-interception document.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>