<?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 216 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157596</link>
    <description>A final decision on the taxability of goods bound the revenue on both the operative result and the foundational finding that the goods were gold-thread. The Karnataka High Court stated that, after earlier writ petitions had quashed notices seeking to tax the turnover under section 5(1) and had proceeded on the basis that the goods fell under entry 49 of the Second Schedule, the same taxability issue could not be reopened through section 12-A. The court treated the earlier finding as essential to the decision and held that a party bound by it could not relitigate the same controversy under a different statutory route. The section 12-A notices were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:08:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 216 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157596</link>
      <description>A final decision on the taxability of goods bound the revenue on both the operative result and the foundational finding that the goods were gold-thread. The Karnataka High Court stated that, after earlier writ petitions had quashed notices seeking to tax the turnover under section 5(1) and had proceeded on the basis that the goods fell under entry 49 of the Second Schedule, the same taxability issue could not be reopened through section 12-A. The court treated the earlier finding as essential to the decision and held that a party bound by it could not relitigate the same controversy under a different statutory route. The section 12-A notices were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>