<?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>1985 (12) TMI 350 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154474</link>
    <description>Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, a principal could be assessed on turnover routed through a commission agent because the statutory scheme treated the agent&#039;s liability as enabling and machinery-based, not exclusive. The definition of dealer covered a commission agent acting for a principal, and section 11 did not bar assessment of the principal unless the same turnover had already been assessed in the agent&#039;s hands. The proviso placed the burden on the principal to show prior assessment of the agent. The amendment to section 11 was treated as clarificatory, and because no assessment had been made against the commission agent for the relevant periods, the principal was held validly assessable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:57:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 350 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154474</link>
      <description>Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, a principal could be assessed on turnover routed through a commission agent because the statutory scheme treated the agent&#039;s liability as enabling and machinery-based, not exclusive. The definition of dealer covered a commission agent acting for a principal, and section 11 did not bar assessment of the principal unless the same turnover had already been assessed in the agent&#039;s hands. The proviso placed the burden on the principal to show prior assessment of the agent. The amendment to section 11 was treated as clarificatory, and because no assessment had been made against the commission agent for the relevant periods, the principal was held validly assessable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>