<?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>2021 (4) TMI 822 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406706</link>
    <description>Under the Kerala Finance Act, 2020 Amnesty Scheme, an assessee could be required to settle only amounts that were legally in arrears, and the Scheme had to be strictly complied with as a complete code. &quot;Arrears of tax&quot; was read in its ordinary sense as overdue or unpaid tax pursuant to an assessment and demand; where an assessee&#039;s appeal had succeeded and no demand survived, there was no arrear for that year. Clause (11) permitted an assessee to opt to include a year in which the Government&#039;s appeal was pending, but it did not authorise compulsory inclusion. The Revenue could not insist on settlement of the earlier year merely because its appeal was pending.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2021 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 822 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406706</link>
      <description>Under the Kerala Finance Act, 2020 Amnesty Scheme, an assessee could be required to settle only amounts that were legally in arrears, and the Scheme had to be strictly complied with as a complete code. &quot;Arrears of tax&quot; was read in its ordinary sense as overdue or unpaid tax pursuant to an assessment and demand; where an assessee&#039;s appeal had succeeded and no demand survived, there was no arrear for that year. Clause (11) permitted an assessee to opt to include a year in which the Government&#039;s appeal was pending, but it did not authorise compulsory inclusion. The Revenue could not insist on settlement of the earlier year merely because its appeal was pending.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>