<?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>1982 (6) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154023</link>
    <description>Rule 25A validly supplied the conditions for the sales tax exemption under entry 28 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, because the Act made the exemption subject to the prescribed conditions and limitations. The amended rule confined the concession to village industries operating outside city or municipal limits, and the petitioners admitted that their oil industry operated within the municipal limits of Gadag-Betegeri. The amendment did not prohibit their trade; it only withdrew the earlier exemption and exposed their turnover to tax. The challenge to the amendment itself failed, so the impugned notices were not without authority of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:12:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154023</link>
      <description>Rule 25A validly supplied the conditions for the sales tax exemption under entry 28 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, because the Act made the exemption subject to the prescribed conditions and limitations. The amended rule confined the concession to village industries operating outside city or municipal limits, and the petitioners admitted that their oil industry operated within the municipal limits of Gadag-Betegeri. The amendment did not prohibit their trade; it only withdrew the earlier exemption and exposed their turnover to tax. The challenge to the amendment itself failed, so the impugned notices were not without authority of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>