<?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 (11) TMI 573 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162376</link>
    <description>A nationalised bank could not validly collect sales tax on sale of goods because, under the Banking Regulation Act and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, a banking company not authorised as a registered dealer or within the specified exempt categories had no power to collect such tax. The bank also failed to prove that the amount collected from the purchaser had been remitted to the State Government, as no receipt or supporting material was produced and the evidence suggested non-remittance. In the absence of proof of payment into the treasury, retention of the collected amount would amount to unjust enrichment, so refund was warranted and the purchaser&#039;s claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:42:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 573 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162376</link>
      <description>A nationalised bank could not validly collect sales tax on sale of goods because, under the Banking Regulation Act and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, a banking company not authorised as a registered dealer or within the specified exempt categories had no power to collect such tax. The bank also failed to prove that the amount collected from the purchaser had been remitted to the State Government, as no receipt or supporting material was produced and the evidence suggested non-remittance. In the absence of proof of payment into the treasury, retention of the collected amount would amount to unjust enrichment, so refund was warranted and the purchaser&#039;s claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>