<?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>2002 (5) TMI 863 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188975</link>
    <description>Section 30C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which authorised seizure and confiscation of specified goods and the transport vehicle on the ground of &quot;smuggling,&quot; was struck down as an unconstitutional exercise of taxing power. The court held that while Entry 54 of List II permits ancillary anti-evasion measures, confiscation cannot rest on undefined and unguided discretion or on a subjective satisfaction standard that can operate even in trivial cases. Treating the provision as materially different from earlier regulatory safeguards, the court found the confiscatory power excessive and arbitrary. The consequential seizure and confiscation proceedings therefore could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:01:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 863 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188975</link>
      <description>Section 30C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which authorised seizure and confiscation of specified goods and the transport vehicle on the ground of &quot;smuggling,&quot; was struck down as an unconstitutional exercise of taxing power. The court held that while Entry 54 of List II permits ancillary anti-evasion measures, confiscation cannot rest on undefined and unguided discretion or on a subjective satisfaction standard that can operate even in trivial cases. Treating the provision as materially different from earlier regulatory safeguards, the court found the confiscatory power excessive and arbitrary. The consequential seizure and confiscation proceedings therefore could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>