<?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 (2) TMI 1908 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282143</link>
    <description>Iron scrap was treated as falling within the broader class of iron and steel for the Kerala Value Added Tax Act schedule and notification, rather than as a separate taxable commodity, because the statutory scheme did not create a distinct category for it. On penalty under section 47, non-production of the prescribed delivery note during transport attracted liability even though the transaction was recorded in the accounts; the absence of an express finding of evasion did not prevent penalty where evasion was inferable from the detention. The penalty was confined to twice the tax sought to be evaded on the invoice value, with excess recovery to be adjusted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2019 06:44:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1908 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282143</link>
      <description>Iron scrap was treated as falling within the broader class of iron and steel for the Kerala Value Added Tax Act schedule and notification, rather than as a separate taxable commodity, because the statutory scheme did not create a distinct category for it. On penalty under section 47, non-production of the prescribed delivery note during transport attracted liability even though the transaction was recorded in the accounts; the absence of an express finding of evasion did not prevent penalty where evasion was inferable from the detention. The penalty was confined to twice the tax sought to be evaded on the invoice value, with excess recovery to be adjusted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>