<?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>2025 (3) TMI 425 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767039</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax regime was found unsustainable where goods were carried by an employee only for hallmarking and were to be returned to the assessee&#039;s store after that process. The revenue failed to show that the goods were meant for sale within the State or in interstate trade, and no material established possible tax evasion. As the assessee was paying tax on a compounded basis, any alleged suppression of turnover in the relevant year did not affect that year&#039;s tax liability. In these facts, a penalty based on alleged suppressed sales was not justified, and confinement to the statutory minimum was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:42:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 425 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767039</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax regime was found unsustainable where goods were carried by an employee only for hallmarking and were to be returned to the assessee&#039;s store after that process. The revenue failed to show that the goods were meant for sale within the State or in interstate trade, and no material established possible tax evasion. As the assessee was paying tax on a compounded basis, any alleged suppression of turnover in the relevant year did not affect that year&#039;s tax liability. In these facts, a penalty based on alleged suppressed sales was not justified, and confinement to the statutory minimum was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>