<?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 (9) TMI 631 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163485</link>
    <description>Rice bran used for oil extraction was treated as a raw material in manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct new commodity, so entry tax under entry 16B applied and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed. Revisional power under section 15(3) could also be exercised where an assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, even if the assessing officer had followed an earlier departmental view; the revisional order was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 631 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163485</link>
      <description>Rice bran used for oil extraction was treated as a raw material in manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct new commodity, so entry tax under entry 16B applied and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed. Revisional power under section 15(3) could also be exercised where an assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, even if the assessing officer had followed an earlier departmental view; the revisional order was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>