<?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>1984 (3) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154373</link>
    <description>A commodity cannot be taxed under a higher classification unless the statutory description is supported by acceptable evidence. The Karnataka HC noted that &quot;heavy chemicals&quot; was undefined under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, so classification had to rest on relevant indicia such as production and price structure, but not on unsupported assumptions. As the record contained no material showing trichloroethylene&#039;s comparative price or any firm basis for treating it as a heavy chemical, retrospective revision of completed assessments was unjustified. The court restored the original assessment orders and rejected revision based on conjecture rather than proof.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:00:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154373</link>
      <description>A commodity cannot be taxed under a higher classification unless the statutory description is supported by acceptable evidence. The Karnataka HC noted that &quot;heavy chemicals&quot; was undefined under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, so classification had to rest on relevant indicia such as production and price structure, but not on unsupported assumptions. As the record contained no material showing trichloroethylene&#039;s comparative price or any firm basis for treating it as a heavy chemical, retrospective revision of completed assessments was unjustified. The court restored the original assessment orders and rejected revision based on conjecture rather than proof.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>