<?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>2001 (12) TMI 884 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188974</link>
    <description>The Kerala High Court upheld tax-administration measures requiring advance payment of tax and use of departmental delivery notes for specified interstate consignments. It held that the Commissioner&#039;s statutory power to issue orders, instructions, and directions extended to steps designed to secure tax collection and prevent evasion, and that the modified directions remained within that framework. The Court also held that transit provisions permitted verification of documents and detention of goods, with tax collection before release where evasion or non-payment was reasonably apprehended. The Article 14 challenge failed because the classification was based on a real and reasonable distinction linked to large-scale evasion in specified commodities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 10:57:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 884 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188974</link>
      <description>The Kerala High Court upheld tax-administration measures requiring advance payment of tax and use of departmental delivery notes for specified interstate consignments. It held that the Commissioner&#039;s statutory power to issue orders, instructions, and directions extended to steps designed to secure tax collection and prevent evasion, and that the modified directions remained within that framework. The Court also held that transit provisions permitted verification of documents and detention of goods, with tax collection before release where evasion or non-payment was reasonably apprehended. The Article 14 challenge failed because the classification was based on a real and reasonable distinction linked to large-scale evasion in specified commodities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>