<?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>1975 (11) TMI 143 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151014</link>
    <description>An additional tax imposed under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was examined for legislative competence under entry 54 of List II and for its effect on the character of the levy. The court applied the principle that an additional tax calculated with reference to dealer turnover is, in substance, an enhancement of sales tax rather than a tax on income. It further noted that computing the levy by reference to sales tax payable, and prohibiting recovery from purchasers, does not alter its character as a sales tax. The additional tax and the restriction on collection were held to fall within State legislative competence, and the constitutional challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (11) TMI 143 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151014</link>
      <description>An additional tax imposed under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was examined for legislative competence under entry 54 of List II and for its effect on the character of the levy. The court applied the principle that an additional tax calculated with reference to dealer turnover is, in substance, an enhancement of sales tax rather than a tax on income. It further noted that computing the levy by reference to sales tax payable, and prohibiting recovery from purchasers, does not alter its character as a sales tax. The additional tax and the restriction on collection were held to fall within State legislative competence, and the constitutional challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>