<?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>1991 (3) TMI 338 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156222</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the proposition notices dated February 17, 1988. It held that the movement of cement from Mangalore to Kerala did not constitute inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court also found that the jurisdiction to issue the proposition notices was not properly established and that the valuation method adopted by the respondent was inappropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:09:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 338 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156222</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the proposition notices dated February 17, 1988. It held that the movement of cement from Mangalore to Kerala did not constitute inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court also found that the jurisdiction to issue the proposition notices was not properly established and that the valuation method adopted by the respondent was inappropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>