<?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 (1) TMI 420 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156877</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption for ceramic tiles manufactured in notified industrially backward areas was challenged as ultra vires section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and discriminatory under article 14 because outside-State dealers did not receive the benefit. The HC upheld the notification as a valid industrial incentive, treating the concession as a permissible classification within the taxing power. It held that differential treatment between local manufacturers in backward areas and outside-State dealers did not amount to hostile discrimination, and the exemption was not beyond the statutory power. The writ petitions therefore failed, leaving the petitioners liable for the tax difference under the interim orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:28:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 420 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156877</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption for ceramic tiles manufactured in notified industrially backward areas was challenged as ultra vires section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and discriminatory under article 14 because outside-State dealers did not receive the benefit. The HC upheld the notification as a valid industrial incentive, treating the concession as a permissible classification within the taxing power. It held that differential treatment between local manufacturers in backward areas and outside-State dealers did not amount to hostile discrimination, and the exemption was not beyond the statutory power. The writ petitions therefore failed, leaving the petitioners liable for the tax difference under the interim orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>