<?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>1994 (5) TMI 286 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294325</link>
    <description>Section 19C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid anti-evasion provision within the State&#039;s taxing competence under Entry 54 of List II, because it operates as a protective assessment device to fasten liability on the real dealer and secure effective tax collection. The provision was also held not to violate Article 14, as it is controlled by an objective &quot;reason to believe&quot; standard requiring the assessing authority to identify business carried on in another&#039;s name or association. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was found inapplicable because the case concerned sales conducted in another&#039;s name, not a benami transfer of property. The challenge failed and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=641044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 286 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294325</link>
      <description>Section 19C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid anti-evasion provision within the State&#039;s taxing competence under Entry 54 of List II, because it operates as a protective assessment device to fasten liability on the real dealer and secure effective tax collection. The provision was also held not to violate Article 14, as it is controlled by an objective &quot;reason to believe&quot; standard requiring the assessing authority to identify business carried on in another&#039;s name or association. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was found inapplicable because the case concerned sales conducted in another&#039;s name, not a benami transfer of property. The challenge failed and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>