<?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>1986 (1) TMI 369 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154588</link>
    <description>GI pipes were classified by their popular commercial identity rather than technical composition, and galvanisation was treated as a protective coating that did not alter their essential character; they therefore fell within the declared-goods entry as steel tubes. The Government of India letter of 20 November 1973 was only advisory and not binding on Karnataka sales tax authorities. The Commissioner&#039;s directions under section 3-A were held lawful and binding while operative, and their later withdrawal did not defeat the assessee&#039;s reliance on them. On that basis, the reassessment could not stand and the assessing authority&#039;s order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:35:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 369 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154588</link>
      <description>GI pipes were classified by their popular commercial identity rather than technical composition, and galvanisation was treated as a protective coating that did not alter their essential character; they therefore fell within the declared-goods entry as steel tubes. The Government of India letter of 20 November 1973 was only advisory and not binding on Karnataka sales tax authorities. The Commissioner&#039;s directions under section 3-A were held lawful and binding while operative, and their later withdrawal did not defeat the assessee&#039;s reliance on them. On that basis, the reassessment could not stand and the assessing authority&#039;s order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>