<?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>1981 (3) TMI 226 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153030</link>
    <description>Bottles and crates sold with liquor were separately assessable where the evidence showed an express and implied agreement for separate sale and the packing material price was separately recovered. The statutory schedule treated liquor, glass bottles and other goods under different entries, so the rate applicable to liquor could not be extended to the containers merely because the liquor was sold in sealed bottles under excise requirements. The turnover attributable to the bottles and crates had to be taxed under the relevant entries for those containers, and the Tribunal&#039;s view that they were separately taxable was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:24:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 226 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153030</link>
      <description>Bottles and crates sold with liquor were separately assessable where the evidence showed an express and implied agreement for separate sale and the packing material price was separately recovered. The statutory schedule treated liquor, glass bottles and other goods under different entries, so the rate applicable to liquor could not be extended to the containers merely because the liquor was sold in sealed bottles under excise requirements. The turnover attributable to the bottles and crates had to be taxed under the relevant entries for those containers, and the Tribunal&#039;s view that they were separately taxable was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>