<?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 (9) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160150</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer challenging an assessment order taxing inter-State sales of imitation jewellery at 10%. The court quashed the tax levy on such sales, citing exemption under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which meant no tax was payable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment and demand notices related to the sales were also set aside. The petition by RAVEENDRAN R.V. against the State was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:08:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160150</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer challenging an assessment order taxing inter-State sales of imitation jewellery at 10%. The court quashed the tax levy on such sales, citing exemption under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which meant no tax was payable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment and demand notices related to the sales were also set aside. The petition by RAVEENDRAN R.V. against the State was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>