<?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>1974 (8) TMI 86 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150818</link>
    <description>Sales tax liability under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act depended on whether the assessee was a dealer. The statutory definition did not include the State Government on the facts, and section 19 treated the Government, when selling goods, as entitled only to collect amounts equivalent to tax recoverable by a registered dealer rather than as a dealer itself. Because an agent&#039;s liability is coextensive with that of the principal, the State Government&#039;s agent could not face a greater liability than the principal where the principal was not liable to tax on the relevant turnover. The respondent was therefore not liable to sales tax for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:25:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 86 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150818</link>
      <description>Sales tax liability under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act depended on whether the assessee was a dealer. The statutory definition did not include the State Government on the facts, and section 19 treated the Government, when selling goods, as entitled only to collect amounts equivalent to tax recoverable by a registered dealer rather than as a dealer itself. Because an agent&#039;s liability is coextensive with that of the principal, the State Government&#039;s agent could not face a greater liability than the principal where the principal was not liable to tax on the relevant turnover. The respondent was therefore not liable to sales tax for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>