<?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>2007 (2) TMI 309 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105807</link>
    <description>Concessional tax under a Karnataka Sales Tax notification applied only where specified machinery was sold to an industrial unit for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, and the notification&#039;s own definition of &quot;industrial inputs&quot; was limited to component parts, raw materials, or packing materials. Tower cranes used for lifting and moving loads in construction did not satisfy that definition and were not eligible for the concessional rate. The penalty framework under the Act permitted recovery of the tax difference and a penalty for breach of the notification conditions, but the penalty had to remain within the statutory ceiling and be fixed having regard to the facts; the penalty was therefore reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 309 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105807</link>
      <description>Concessional tax under a Karnataka Sales Tax notification applied only where specified machinery was sold to an industrial unit for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, and the notification&#039;s own definition of &quot;industrial inputs&quot; was limited to component parts, raw materials, or packing materials. Tower cranes used for lifting and moving loads in construction did not satisfy that definition and were not eligible for the concessional rate. The penalty framework under the Act permitted recovery of the tax difference and a penalty for breach of the notification conditions, but the penalty had to remain within the statutory ceiling and be fixed having regard to the facts; the penalty was therefore reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>