<?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>1980 (2) TMI 232 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152659</link>
    <description>Desiccated coconut was treated as &quot;coconut&quot; in its ordinary and commercial sense, because the processed product remained the grated and dehydrated kernel without losing its essential identity. Applying the common parlance test and a construction that avoids repeated taxation of the same commodity in different forms, the text states that desiccated coconut continued to qualify as declared goods and was not separately liable to Central sales tax where purchase tax had already been paid on the original coconuts. It also states that, after a changed classification and higher levy, the assessees had to be given an opportunity to produce C forms before the enhanced rate could be applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:03:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (2) TMI 232 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152659</link>
      <description>Desiccated coconut was treated as &quot;coconut&quot; in its ordinary and commercial sense, because the processed product remained the grated and dehydrated kernel without losing its essential identity. Applying the common parlance test and a construction that avoids repeated taxation of the same commodity in different forms, the text states that desiccated coconut continued to qualify as declared goods and was not separately liable to Central sales tax where purchase tax had already been paid on the original coconuts. It also states that, after a changed classification and higher levy, the assessees had to be given an opportunity to produce C forms before the enhanced rate could be applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>