<?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 (4) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157284</link>
    <description>Vee belts were held not to fall within the entry tax charge on industrial machinery, parts or accessories because they were sold separately and were not shown to be integral components supplied with machinery. The court rejected the user test, holding that a good is not an accessory merely because it is used with machinery or is necessary for its operation. The departmental clarification treating Vee belts as taxable accessories could not control the proper construction of the charging entry and was not binding on assessing authorities. The levy based on that clarification was unsustainable, and the assessment proceedings were quashed with consequential refund relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:36:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157284</link>
      <description>Vee belts were held not to fall within the entry tax charge on industrial machinery, parts or accessories because they were sold separately and were not shown to be integral components supplied with machinery. The court rejected the user test, holding that a good is not an accessory merely because it is used with machinery or is necessary for its operation. The departmental clarification treating Vee belts as taxable accessories could not control the proper construction of the charging entry and was not binding on assessing authorities. The levy based on that clarification was unsustainable, and the assessment proceedings were quashed with consequential refund relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>