<?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>2018 (12) TMI 352 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371583</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the decision that the compounding fee could not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 74 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, dismissing the coercion claim by the assessee. The Court also held that commencing a new business extinguished the entitlement to compound under Section 8(c) of the Act, rejecting the need for cancellation before regular assessment. Regarding the limitation issue under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Court found that the five-year limitation period applied, and failure to initiate proceedings within this timeframe deprived the officer of jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the assessment order, with costs to be borne by each party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 352 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371583</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the decision that the compounding fee could not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 74 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, dismissing the coercion claim by the assessee. The Court also held that commencing a new business extinguished the entitlement to compound under Section 8(c) of the Act, rejecting the need for cancellation before regular assessment. Regarding the limitation issue under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Court found that the five-year limitation period applied, and failure to initiate proceedings within this timeframe deprived the officer of jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the assessment order, with costs to be borne by each party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>