<?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 (11) TMI 599 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163327</link>
    <description>A composite advertising contract that includes supply of brochures, printed material and other content embodied on a medium may be treated as a taxable supply of goods, even where the work also involves concept development, design and related services. Separate billing of components does not change the indivisible character of the contract or its taxability. Rectification is unavailable unless the record shows a clear, self-evident mistake; where the original conclusion follows the applicable legal position, no mistake apparent on the face of the record exists. Both challenges were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:20:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 599 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163327</link>
      <description>A composite advertising contract that includes supply of brochures, printed material and other content embodied on a medium may be treated as a taxable supply of goods, even where the work also involves concept development, design and related services. Separate billing of components does not change the indivisible character of the contract or its taxability. Rectification is unavailable unless the record shows a clear, self-evident mistake; where the original conclusion follows the applicable legal position, no mistake apparent on the face of the record exists. Both challenges were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>