<?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>1999 (2) TMI 168 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90287</link>
    <description>A clarification on clubbing of industrial undertakings treated the undertaking as distinct from its ownership form and limited clubbing to similar forms of ownership. On that basis, a proprietary concern could not be clubbed with a company or partnership concern merely because the same person was connected with them, and action taken on the broader approach was inconsistent with the clarified position. The de-registration action and the impugned show cause notices were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 168 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90287</link>
      <description>A clarification on clubbing of industrial undertakings treated the undertaking as distinct from its ownership form and limited clubbing to similar forms of ownership. On that basis, a proprietary concern could not be clubbed with a company or partnership concern merely because the same person was connected with them, and action taken on the broader approach was inconsistent with the clarified position. The de-registration action and the impugned show cause notices were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>