<?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 696 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162389</link>
    <description>A manufacturer engaged in making tyre flaps was treated as a distinct class of dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and locally purchased firewood used in manufacture attracted purchase tax under section 5(5)(b)(ii) when the statutory conditions were met. The petitioner bought firewood from unregistered local dealers and used it in manufacturing activity; on those admitted facts, the authorities correctly taxed the purchase turnover. The contention that the turnover was below Rs. 2 lakhs did not defeat liability. No substantial question of law arose, and the revision petitions were rejected, leaving the concurrent assessment orders undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:40:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 696 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162389</link>
      <description>A manufacturer engaged in making tyre flaps was treated as a distinct class of dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and locally purchased firewood used in manufacture attracted purchase tax under section 5(5)(b)(ii) when the statutory conditions were met. The petitioner bought firewood from unregistered local dealers and used it in manufacturing activity; on those admitted facts, the authorities correctly taxed the purchase turnover. The contention that the turnover was below Rs. 2 lakhs did not defeat liability. No substantial question of law arose, and the revision petitions were rejected, leaving the concurrent assessment orders undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>