<?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 (11) TMI 394 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157176</link>
    <description>Industrial machinery brought into a local area for use in a workshop for job work was treated as entry of goods for &quot;use&quot; under the entry tax law, because the term takes colour from &quot;consumption&quot; and &quot;sale&quot; and is not limited to goods physically used up or destroyed. The Court also held that a person who buys or receives scheduled goods and carries on business in the local area can fall within the wide statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot;, even if the goods are used in job work and not resold. On that basis, the registration and exclusion arguments failed and the levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:25:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 394 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157176</link>
      <description>Industrial machinery brought into a local area for use in a workshop for job work was treated as entry of goods for &quot;use&quot; under the entry tax law, because the term takes colour from &quot;consumption&quot; and &quot;sale&quot; and is not limited to goods physically used up or destroyed. The Court also held that a person who buys or receives scheduled goods and carries on business in the local area can fall within the wide statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot;, even if the goods are used in job work and not resold. On that basis, the registration and exclusion arguments failed and the levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>