<?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>2005 (1) TMI 639 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161875</link>
    <description>A later exemption notification that adopts the terms of an earlier sales tax notification by reference is treated as incorporating its conditions dynamically, so later amendments to the earlier notification apply unless a contrary intention appears. On that construction, the insertion of clause (g) into the earlier notification governed the entry tax exemption scheme as well, and a large-scale industrial unit that did not satisfy the amended conditions was excluded from the benefit. The claim for exemption under Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated 31 March 1993 therefore failed, and the levy of entry tax was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:32:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 639 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161875</link>
      <description>A later exemption notification that adopts the terms of an earlier sales tax notification by reference is treated as incorporating its conditions dynamically, so later amendments to the earlier notification apply unless a contrary intention appears. On that construction, the insertion of clause (g) into the earlier notification governed the entry tax exemption scheme as well, and a large-scale industrial unit that did not satisfy the amended conditions was excluded from the benefit. The claim for exemption under Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated 31 March 1993 therefore failed, and the levy of entry tax was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>