<?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>1996 (4) TMI 467 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158857</link>
    <description>Section 6-D cess under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as confined to sales or purchases within the Bangalore City Planning Area. The charging provision was construed in light of legislative history, budget speeches, a later declaratory amendment, and pari materia cess provisions to confirm that the levy was intended to fund the Bangalore Mass Rapid Transit System only for area-based taxable events. The proviso also pointed to an area-specific charge, and a wider reading was rejected because the Legislature had not used language such as &quot;total turnover&quot;. On that construction, transactions through branches outside the Planning Area were not subject to the cess, and the circular was invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:10:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 467 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158857</link>
      <description>Section 6-D cess under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as confined to sales or purchases within the Bangalore City Planning Area. The charging provision was construed in light of legislative history, budget speeches, a later declaratory amendment, and pari materia cess provisions to confirm that the levy was intended to fund the Bangalore Mass Rapid Transit System only for area-based taxable events. The proviso also pointed to an area-specific charge, and a wider reading was rejected because the Legislature had not used language such as &quot;total turnover&quot;. On that construction, transactions through branches outside the Planning Area were not subject to the cess, and the circular was invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>