<?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>2003 (3) TMI 682 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161549</link>
    <description>The Karnataka High Court upheld the Coffee Board&#039;s uniform price fixation for coffee growers under the Coffee Act, 1942, holding that the statutory scheme of compulsory delivery, pooled marketing and payment from the common fund permitted deduction of overheads, including purchase tax paid by the Board. The Court found that growers had no enforceable right to State-wise variation in the final price or to characterise the Board&#039;s method as tax collection from growers. Applying limited judicial review in fiscal and technical policy matters, it ruled that the policy was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and was not shown to be contrary to Article 14 or the Act. The writ appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:30:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 682 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161549</link>
      <description>The Karnataka High Court upheld the Coffee Board&#039;s uniform price fixation for coffee growers under the Coffee Act, 1942, holding that the statutory scheme of compulsory delivery, pooled marketing and payment from the common fund permitted deduction of overheads, including purchase tax paid by the Board. The Court found that growers had no enforceable right to State-wise variation in the final price or to characterise the Board&#039;s method as tax collection from growers. Applying limited judicial review in fiscal and technical policy matters, it ruled that the policy was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and was not shown to be contrary to Article 14 or the Act. The writ appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>