<?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 (12) TMI 303 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156599</link>
    <description>Steel shutter lathes were treated as falling within entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act because their physical characteristics and admitted use brought them within the exempt category. The Court held that, once covered by that specific entry, the goods were taxable only at the first sale point and could not be subjected to levy under section 5(1) merely on account of the assessee&#039;s trade activity. It further held that the general charging provision applied only where the transaction was outside the specific charging and exemption structure, so revisional interference under section 22-A was unwarranted. The levy was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:52:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 303 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156599</link>
      <description>Steel shutter lathes were treated as falling within entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act because their physical characteristics and admitted use brought them within the exempt category. The Court held that, once covered by that specific entry, the goods were taxable only at the first sale point and could not be subjected to levy under section 5(1) merely on account of the assessee&#039;s trade activity. It further held that the general charging provision applied only where the transaction was outside the specific charging and exemption structure, so revisional interference under section 22-A was unwarranted. The levy was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>