<?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>2007 (6) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162573</link>
    <description>A levy on the sale of denatured spirit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was upheld as constitutionally valid because it fell within the State Legislature&#039;s taxing competence. The court held that the tax did not become unconstitutional merely because the rate was high, the petitioner alone was affected, or the levy incidentally influenced business viability and commercial conduct. It further held that oppressiveness arises only where a tax assumes a confiscatory character, which was not established. The challenges based on colourable exercise of power, discrimination, and infringement of freedom of trade therefore failed, and the amended VAT levy was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:55:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162573</link>
      <description>A levy on the sale of denatured spirit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was upheld as constitutionally valid because it fell within the State Legislature&#039;s taxing competence. The court held that the tax did not become unconstitutional merely because the rate was high, the petitioner alone was affected, or the levy incidentally influenced business viability and commercial conduct. It further held that oppressiveness arises only where a tax assumes a confiscatory character, which was not established. The challenges based on colourable exercise of power, discrimination, and infringement of freedom of trade therefore failed, and the amended VAT levy was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>