<?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>2004 (7) TMI 630 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163405</link>
    <description>Entry tax separately collected by a dealer under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 was treated as part of the sale consideration under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the statute did not expressly authorise collection of that levy on behalf of the State. The court noted that sale price and taxable turnover include amounts payable by the purchaser as part of the bargain unless a specific exclusion applies. Since the entry tax was billed separately in invoices but not shown to be a neutral levy collected as agent of the State, it was includible in taxable turnover. The dealer&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:16:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 630 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163405</link>
      <description>Entry tax separately collected by a dealer under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 was treated as part of the sale consideration under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the statute did not expressly authorise collection of that levy on behalf of the State. The court noted that sale price and taxable turnover include amounts payable by the purchaser as part of the bargain unless a specific exclusion applies. Since the entry tax was billed separately in invoices but not shown to be a neutral levy collected as agent of the State, it was includible in taxable turnover. The dealer&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>