<?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>2020 (6) TMI 358 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395983</link>
    <description>Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was treated as an independent levy on residential buildings completed on or after 1 April 1999 and having the prescribed plinth area. The Kerala High Court held that the State&#039;s power under Article 246 read with Entry 62 of List II continued to support a tax on luxuries, and the GST-related amendments did not remove legislative competence for this levy. The repeal and saving provisions were read as abolishing the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976, not the separately created Section 5A charge. The luxury tax assessment was therefore held valid, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:32:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 358 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395983</link>
      <description>Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was treated as an independent levy on residential buildings completed on or after 1 April 1999 and having the prescribed plinth area. The Kerala High Court held that the State&#039;s power under Article 246 read with Entry 62 of List II continued to support a tax on luxuries, and the GST-related amendments did not remove legislative competence for this levy. The repeal and saving provisions were read as abolishing the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976, not the separately created Section 5A charge. The luxury tax assessment was therefore held valid, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>