<?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>2017 (4) TMI 364 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341394</link>
    <description>Input tax credit under the KVAT framework requires strict statutory compliance and production of prescribed original documents and proper accounts; on the facts, the assessee failed to establish entitlement, and concurrent findings on the coal quantity variation and alleged diversion were treated as factual findings not open to interference, so the penalty for 2006-07 was upheld. A fact-finding order restoring penalty for 2007-08 must disclose reasons and application of mind; because the Tribunal reversed a reasoned appellate finding without explaining why it was wrong, that part was set aside and remanded for fresh decision after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:31:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 364 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341394</link>
      <description>Input tax credit under the KVAT framework requires strict statutory compliance and production of prescribed original documents and proper accounts; on the facts, the assessee failed to establish entitlement, and concurrent findings on the coal quantity variation and alleged diversion were treated as factual findings not open to interference, so the penalty for 2006-07 was upheld. A fact-finding order restoring penalty for 2007-08 must disclose reasons and application of mind; because the Tribunal reversed a reasoned appellate finding without explaining why it was wrong, that part was set aside and remanded for fresh decision after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>