<?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>1990 (7) TMI 318 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155910</link>
    <description>A notification reducing tax on specified machine tools was item-specific and therefore fell within section 8-A(1)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, not section 8-A(1)(b), which applies to a class of dealers. Because section 8-A(3-A) provides that a clause (a) notification is cancelled to the extent it relates to those goods when the Act amends the tax rate on them, the notification ceased to operate from 15 March 1980. The view that it survived under clause (b) was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:55:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 318 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155910</link>
      <description>A notification reducing tax on specified machine tools was item-specific and therefore fell within section 8-A(1)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, not section 8-A(1)(b), which applies to a class of dealers. Because section 8-A(3-A) provides that a clause (a) notification is cancelled to the extent it relates to those goods when the Act amends the tax rate on them, the notification ceased to operate from 15 March 1980. The view that it survived under clause (b) was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>