<?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>2006 (9) TMI 514 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162695</link>
    <description>Electrical spare parts purchased for thermal generating sets used in captive power generation were treated as machinery under the entry tax law because the machinery entry was specific and included parts and accessories, while the electrical and electronic goods entry was general. Applying settled principles of taxing statute interpretation, the specific entry prevailed over the broader one. The Court also relied on prior authority treating diesel generating sets as machinery rather than electrical goods merely because they generate electricity. The entry tax levy at two per cent was therefore upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:02:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 514 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162695</link>
      <description>Electrical spare parts purchased for thermal generating sets used in captive power generation were treated as machinery under the entry tax law because the machinery entry was specific and included parts and accessories, while the electrical and electronic goods entry was general. Applying settled principles of taxing statute interpretation, the specific entry prevailed over the broader one. The Court also relied on prior authority treating diesel generating sets as machinery rather than electrical goods merely because they generate electricity. The entry tax levy at two per cent was therefore upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>