<?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 (3) TMI 719 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162965</link>
    <description>A notification issued under section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 could not withdraw an exemption that the State industrial incentive policy had specifically promised to 100% export oriented units. The policy extended entry tax and sales tax relief to consumables, and that expression was treated as covering petroleum products used as consumables. Because the notification carved out petroleum products from the promised benefit, it was inconsistent with and repugnant to the policy and could not stand to that extent. The exclusion was therefore invalid to that extent, and the consequential endorsement was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:47:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349049" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 719 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162965</link>
      <description>A notification issued under section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 could not withdraw an exemption that the State industrial incentive policy had specifically promised to 100% export oriented units. The policy extended entry tax and sales tax relief to consumables, and that expression was treated as covering petroleum products used as consumables. Because the notification carved out petroleum products from the promised benefit, it was inconsistent with and repugnant to the policy and could not stand to that extent. The exclusion was therefore invalid to that extent, and the consequential endorsement was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>