<?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 (11) TMI 210 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157495</link>
    <description>Explanation VIII to the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was construed as a broad exemption from levy, not limited to tax under section 5 or the Second Schedule alone. Because raw silk had already suffered tax and silk yarn was treated as a commercially distinct product, the provision was read in light of the legislative intent to avoid double taxation on the same raw material and finished product. The Court applied the language of the explanation and the scheme of the Act to hold that the exemption also covered turnover tax under section 6-B. The Commissioner&#039;s contrary clarification was held illegal, ultra vires and unenforceable, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:14:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 210 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157495</link>
      <description>Explanation VIII to the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was construed as a broad exemption from levy, not limited to tax under section 5 or the Second Schedule alone. Because raw silk had already suffered tax and silk yarn was treated as a commercially distinct product, the provision was read in light of the legislative intent to avoid double taxation on the same raw material and finished product. The Court applied the language of the explanation and the scheme of the Act to hold that the exemption also covered turnover tax under section 6-B. The Commissioner&#039;s contrary clarification was held illegal, ultra vires and unenforceable, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>