<?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 482 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371713</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to reverse the first appellate authority&#039;s order regarding the assessment of taxable turnover for sawing job works. The Court found that the first appellate authority did not properly examine the records, leading to a judgment against the assessee. The inclusion of job works under the KVAT Act was upheld, as the charges were considered part of the consideration for goods sold. The Court clarified the requirement of maintaining complete name and address in job work invoices but ultimately dismissed the revisions, supporting the Tribunal&#039;s order due to the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:37:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 482 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371713</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to reverse the first appellate authority&#039;s order regarding the assessment of taxable turnover for sawing job works. The Court found that the first appellate authority did not properly examine the records, leading to a judgment against the assessee. The inclusion of job works under the KVAT Act was upheld, as the charges were considered part of the consideration for goods sold. The Court clarified the requirement of maintaining complete name and address in job work invoices but ultimately dismissed the revisions, supporting the Tribunal&#039;s order due to the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>