<?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>1988 (4) TMI 410 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155312</link>
    <description>Industrial machinery brought into a local area for use in a workshop was treated as goods entering for the entrant&#039;s own use, so entry tax could apply even though the machinery was not physically exhausted or converted into another commodity. The Court&#039;s reasoning followed the broader understanding that &quot;use&quot; and &quot;consumption&quot; under the entry tax scheme do not require the goods to be used up in a literal sense. It also held that a person may fall within the statutory concept of &quot;dealer&quot; where goods are bought and used in the course of business or in aid of a commercial process, so the petitioner could not claim exemption on the ground that it was not a dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:34:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 410 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155312</link>
      <description>Industrial machinery brought into a local area for use in a workshop was treated as goods entering for the entrant&#039;s own use, so entry tax could apply even though the machinery was not physically exhausted or converted into another commodity. The Court&#039;s reasoning followed the broader understanding that &quot;use&quot; and &quot;consumption&quot; under the entry tax scheme do not require the goods to be used up in a literal sense. It also held that a person may fall within the statutory concept of &quot;dealer&quot; where goods are bought and used in the course of business or in aid of a commercial process, so the petitioner could not claim exemption on the ground that it was not a dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>