<?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>1983 (11) TMI 273 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154379</link>
    <description>A valid and subsisting certificate of recognition for village industry products under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act binds departmental authorities and supports exemption from tax for goods listed in the Fifth Schedule. Where the Commissioner has granted recognition under the relevant rules and that certificate has not been cancelled, a Deputy Commissioner or audit authority cannot, in revision, recharacterise the product on the same factual basis and withdraw the exemption. The text states that an attempt to deny exemption on the ground that the chappals were mainly made of rubber was an impermissible departure from the Commissioner&#039;s recognition, and the revisionary action was invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:02:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 273 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154379</link>
      <description>A valid and subsisting certificate of recognition for village industry products under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act binds departmental authorities and supports exemption from tax for goods listed in the Fifth Schedule. Where the Commissioner has granted recognition under the relevant rules and that certificate has not been cancelled, a Deputy Commissioner or audit authority cannot, in revision, recharacterise the product on the same factual basis and withdraw the exemption. The text states that an attempt to deny exemption on the ground that the chappals were mainly made of rubber was an impermissible departure from the Commissioner&#039;s recognition, and the revisionary action was invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>