<?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>1995 (7) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159031</link>
    <description>A Karnataka sales tax exemption notification under section 8-A, granting relief from tax under section 6-B for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, was examined for equality compliance. The classification denied the exemption to manufacturers and their agents who were also dealers, but the notification did not draw any real distinction relevant to the levy, the commodity, or the stage of taxation. As manufacturers&#039; agents stood in the same position as other dealers for the purpose of the levy, the selective exclusion had no rational basis and created an artificial distinction. The notification was therefore invalid to the extent of that exclusion and was quashed in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:03:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159031</link>
      <description>A Karnataka sales tax exemption notification under section 8-A, granting relief from tax under section 6-B for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, was examined for equality compliance. The classification denied the exemption to manufacturers and their agents who were also dealers, but the notification did not draw any real distinction relevant to the levy, the commodity, or the stage of taxation. As manufacturers&#039; agents stood in the same position as other dealers for the purpose of the levy, the selective exclusion had no rational basis and created an artificial distinction. The notification was therefore invalid to the extent of that exclusion and was quashed in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>