<?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>2023 (11) TMI 1124 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446233</link>
    <description>The HC ruled in favor of the revenue, affirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner, a supplier of coir looms under a Central Government Scheme. The Court found that the amounts received from the bank constituted the actual consideration for the supply of complete looms, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s claim of billing for parts only. The HC held that the petitioner&#039;s actions violated the Scheme&#039;s terms, justifying the penalty for underbilling and tax evasion. The Court concluded that the Commissioner&#039;s order did not warrant interference, dismissing the petitioner&#039;s arguments against the tax liability and penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 07:31:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1124 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446233</link>
      <description>The HC ruled in favor of the revenue, affirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner, a supplier of coir looms under a Central Government Scheme. The Court found that the amounts received from the bank constituted the actual consideration for the supply of complete looms, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s claim of billing for parts only. The HC held that the petitioner&#039;s actions violated the Scheme&#039;s terms, justifying the penalty for underbilling and tax evasion. The Court concluded that the Commissioner&#039;s order did not warrant interference, dismissing the petitioner&#039;s arguments against the tax liability and penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>