<?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>1997 (6) TMI 351 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159977</link>
    <description>A statutory body with separate corporate existence is not treated as a Government department for concessional sales tax unless the notification expressly says so. Sales to nationalised banks and to Zilla Parishads before their specific inclusion did not qualify for the reduced rate because neither entity was covered by the original notification. After the amendment expressly added &quot;Zilla Parishads in Karnataka&quot; from 23 January 1989, sales to those bodies within the notification&#039;s scope became eligible for the concessional rate. The concession therefore operated strictly according to the notification&#039;s express terms, and not by any broader characterisation of the recipient as an instrumentality of State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:46:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 351 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159977</link>
      <description>A statutory body with separate corporate existence is not treated as a Government department for concessional sales tax unless the notification expressly says so. Sales to nationalised banks and to Zilla Parishads before their specific inclusion did not qualify for the reduced rate because neither entity was covered by the original notification. After the amendment expressly added &quot;Zilla Parishads in Karnataka&quot; from 23 January 1989, sales to those bodies within the notification&#039;s scope became eligible for the concessional rate. The concession therefore operated strictly according to the notification&#039;s express terms, and not by any broader characterisation of the recipient as an instrumentality of State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>