<?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 (10) TMI 511 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162271</link>
    <description>Administrative circulars under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be treated as retrospectively operative without statutory authority. A circular dated 12 April 1996 could not govern assessment years preceding its issue, even though the underlying provision was later amended or validated retrospectively. The later circular dated 23 October 1999 correctly reflected section 5-C as an independent, multi-point levy on transfer of the right to use goods; once the earlier circular was found inconsistent with that charging provision, it could not continue to bind assessments for the relevant period. Contemporanea expositio, benefit of doubt, and the validation clause did not displace the plain statutory meaning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:56:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 511 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162271</link>
      <description>Administrative circulars under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be treated as retrospectively operative without statutory authority. A circular dated 12 April 1996 could not govern assessment years preceding its issue, even though the underlying provision was later amended or validated retrospectively. The later circular dated 23 October 1999 correctly reflected section 5-C as an independent, multi-point levy on transfer of the right to use goods; once the earlier circular was found inconsistent with that charging provision, it could not continue to bind assessments for the relevant period. Contemporanea expositio, benefit of doubt, and the validation clause did not displace the plain statutory meaning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>