<?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 (12) TMI 254 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156573</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act used the expression &quot;total turnover&quot; as a condition for concessional tax on handmade washing soaps. The statutory definition in section 2(1)(u-2) treated total turnover as the dealer&#039;s aggregate turnover in all goods, and the notification gave no contextual basis to narrow it to soap sales alone. The expression was therefore given its statutory meaning, because a restricted reading would render &quot;total&quot; ineffective. The concession could validly be made subject to the dealer&#039;s overall turnover ceiling, and the narrower construction was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:18:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (12) TMI 254 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156573</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act used the expression &quot;total turnover&quot; as a condition for concessional tax on handmade washing soaps. The statutory definition in section 2(1)(u-2) treated total turnover as the dealer&#039;s aggregate turnover in all goods, and the notification gave no contextual basis to narrow it to soap sales alone. The expression was therefore given its statutory meaning, because a restricted reading would render &quot;total&quot; ineffective. The concession could validly be made subject to the dealer&#039;s overall turnover ceiling, and the narrower construction was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>