<?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>1998 (3) TMI 640 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159153</link>
    <description>Methanol mixture was treated as &quot;motor spirit&quot; because the Karnataka Sales Tax Act definition covers substances used directly or indirectly to provide reasonably efficient fuel for automotive or stationery internal combustion engines. The Court noted that the mixture assisted combustion and engine performance, so it did not need to be the principal fuel. Reliance on the Central Excise tariff definition was rejected because the State Act contained its own governing explanation. The concessional 4% notification was confined to goods manufactured in Karnataka and sold to specified Government departments, so a dealer who was not the manufacturer could not claim the benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2013 14:50:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 640 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159153</link>
      <description>Methanol mixture was treated as &quot;motor spirit&quot; because the Karnataka Sales Tax Act definition covers substances used directly or indirectly to provide reasonably efficient fuel for automotive or stationery internal combustion engines. The Court noted that the mixture assisted combustion and engine performance, so it did not need to be the principal fuel. Reliance on the Central Excise tariff definition was rejected because the State Act contained its own governing explanation. The concessional 4% notification was confined to goods manufactured in Karnataka and sold to specified Government departments, so a dealer who was not the manufacturer could not claim the benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>