<?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 (6) TMI 1620 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281076</link>
    <description>Non-declaration of imported goods in Form 8F(A) under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act created a presumption of suppression because the statutory import intimation was meant to alert the Commercial Taxes Department. A bill of entry before Customs did not satisfy that separate disclosure requirement, and later payment of tax on the manufactured finished goods did not cure the earlier default. In a multi-point VAT system, concealment of the imported component could support an inference of attempted tax evasion on the subsequent sale, so the assessee failed to disprove liability for penalty under the relevant penalty provision. The penalty was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2019 20:22:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1620 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281076</link>
      <description>Non-declaration of imported goods in Form 8F(A) under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act created a presumption of suppression because the statutory import intimation was meant to alert the Commercial Taxes Department. A bill of entry before Customs did not satisfy that separate disclosure requirement, and later payment of tax on the manufactured finished goods did not cure the earlier default. In a multi-point VAT system, concealment of the imported component could support an inference of attempted tax evasion on the subsequent sale, so the assessee failed to disprove liability for penalty under the relevant penalty provision. The penalty was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>