<?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 (5) TMI 566 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163462</link>
    <description>An explanatory amendment to an exemption notification was treated as clarificatory where it only prescribed the method of computing the tax relief and did not withdraw or reduce the substantive exemption available to an existing industrial unit. The court noted that the earlier exemption scheme under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act extended relief to units undertaking expansion, diversification or modernisation, and that the later notification merely substituted the explanatory clause to remove uncertainty in quantification. Because no accrued benefit or vested right was taken away, the challenge to the later notification failed and the State&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:27:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 566 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163462</link>
      <description>An explanatory amendment to an exemption notification was treated as clarificatory where it only prescribed the method of computing the tax relief and did not withdraw or reduce the substantive exemption available to an existing industrial unit. The court noted that the earlier exemption scheme under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act extended relief to units undertaking expansion, diversification or modernisation, and that the later notification merely substituted the explanatory clause to remove uncertainty in quantification. Because no accrued benefit or vested right was taken away, the challenge to the later notification failed and the State&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>