<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1073 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164418</link>
    <description>Consignment despatch outside the State was not treated as a sale within the Karnataka Sales Tax Act&#039;s scheme for total turnover, so it could not be brought within the impugned levy. Exemption notifications were construed strictly on their plain language, and the requirement that raw bathi be consumed in manufacture of agarbathi &quot;for sale&quot; was read as confined to sales within the State. Applying the associated-word principle, the relief did not extend to consignment sales outside Karnataka, and the later notification covering inter-State trade confirmed that position. The Tribunal&#039;s view was sustained, and the assessee remained liable to tax on the raw bathi so used.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1073 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164418</link>
      <description>Consignment despatch outside the State was not treated as a sale within the Karnataka Sales Tax Act&#039;s scheme for total turnover, so it could not be brought within the impugned levy. Exemption notifications were construed strictly on their plain language, and the requirement that raw bathi be consumed in manufacture of agarbathi &quot;for sale&quot; was read as confined to sales within the State. Applying the associated-word principle, the relief did not extend to consignment sales outside Karnataka, and the later notification covering inter-State trade confirmed that position. The Tribunal&#039;s view was sustained, and the assessee remained liable to tax on the raw bathi so used.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>