<?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 (9) TMI 322 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155742</link>
    <description>The Coffee Board&#039;s purchase tax liability under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as an incident of its statutory marketing function and therefore as part of the cost of storing, curing and marketing recoverable from the Coffee Act pool fund. The pool fund was held to be a continuing fund, so season-wise closure of accounts did not prevent later receipts from being applied to earlier accrued tax liability. Section 18 of the Sales Tax Act was found inapplicable because the Board was not collecting tax from growers, but meeting its own liability from the fund. The Board&#039;s contrary resolution was ineffective as it conflicted with section 32(2)(b) and had been cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 14:51:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 322 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155742</link>
      <description>The Coffee Board&#039;s purchase tax liability under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as an incident of its statutory marketing function and therefore as part of the cost of storing, curing and marketing recoverable from the Coffee Act pool fund. The pool fund was held to be a continuing fund, so season-wise closure of accounts did not prevent later receipts from being applied to earlier accrued tax liability. Section 18 of the Sales Tax Act was found inapplicable because the Board was not collecting tax from growers, but meeting its own liability from the fund. The Board&#039;s contrary resolution was ineffective as it conflicted with section 32(2)(b) and had been cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>