<?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>1999 (1) TMI 515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160736</link>
    <description>Receipts from the sale of salvaged tea were treated as taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands because the assessee took possession of damaged tea, carried out the salvage and sale through its own unit, and completed the transactions within the State. The fact that some purchasers were outside the State did not alter the character of the sales, and the assessee did not establish that the insurance company bore the tax liability. Penalty for non-disclosure was also sustained because the sale proceeds were omitted from the books, detected on verification, and the suppression of material facts was found to justify the penalty within the statutory limit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:22:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160736</link>
      <description>Receipts from the sale of salvaged tea were treated as taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands because the assessee took possession of damaged tea, carried out the salvage and sale through its own unit, and completed the transactions within the State. The fact that some purchasers were outside the State did not alter the character of the sales, and the assessee did not establish that the insurance company bore the tax liability. Penalty for non-disclosure was also sustained because the sale proceeds were omitted from the books, detected on verification, and the suppression of material facts was found to justify the penalty within the statutory limit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>