<?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>1993 (1) TMI 260 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157072</link>
    <description>A statutory fiction excluding silk fabric sales by specified handloom or power-loom weavers from the definition of sale under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held to carry its full legal effect, so the corresponding transactions could not be treated as purchases attracting purchase tax under section 6. By contrast, export-linked penultimate sales could not be split off and recharacterised as inter-State despatches to escape section 6(ii); the Court read the State Act with the Central Sales Tax Act and held that transactions falling within the course of export under section 5(3) remained governed by that framework. The petitions succeeded only on the first point, while the broader challenge to section 6(ii) failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:17:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 260 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157072</link>
      <description>A statutory fiction excluding silk fabric sales by specified handloom or power-loom weavers from the definition of sale under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held to carry its full legal effect, so the corresponding transactions could not be treated as purchases attracting purchase tax under section 6. By contrast, export-linked penultimate sales could not be split off and recharacterised as inter-State despatches to escape section 6(ii); the Court read the State Act with the Central Sales Tax Act and held that transactions falling within the course of export under section 5(3) remained governed by that framework. The petitions succeeded only on the first point, while the broader challenge to section 6(ii) failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>