<?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 (12) TMI 1695 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199168</link>
    <description>A compounded tax option for works contractors is an optional substitute for normal taxation, but the permission is confined to the specific works contract for which it is sought and granted. The third proviso to Section 8, read with the return requirements, shows that the option is work-order specific because the contractor must disclose the work order, project details, and contract particulars on a quarterly basis. A contractor cannot use permission granted for one contract to cover unrelated works for which no separate option was filed or approval obtained. The assessee was therefore not entitled to compounded tax beyond the covered contracts, and the reassessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1695 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199168</link>
      <description>A compounded tax option for works contractors is an optional substitute for normal taxation, but the permission is confined to the specific works contract for which it is sought and granted. The third proviso to Section 8, read with the return requirements, shows that the option is work-order specific because the contractor must disclose the work order, project details, and contract particulars on a quarterly basis. A contractor cannot use permission granted for one contract to cover unrelated works for which no separate option was filed or approval obtained. The assessee was therefore not entitled to compounded tax beyond the covered contracts, and the reassessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>