https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164526 The Karnataka Value Added Tax concession was confined to liability governed by the KVAT Act and rule 166, so it could not be extended to liability arising under the earlier sales tax enactment. The court held that the statutory scheme did not permit enlargement of the concession beyond its express terms, making the restriction consistent with the enactment and not ultra vires. The challenge under Article 14 also failed because no illegality in the limitation was shown. The impugned clarification or order was therefore upheld and the claim for extended concessional benefit rejected. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:25:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164526 The Karnataka Value Added Tax concession was confined to liability governed by the KVAT Act and rule 166, so it could not be extended to liability arising under the earlier sales tax enactment. The court held that the statutory scheme did not permit enlargement of the concession beyond its express terms, making the restriction consistent with the enactment and not ultra vires. The challenge under Article 14 also failed because no illegality in the limitation was shown. The impugned clarification or order was therefore upheld and the claim for extended concessional benefit rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164526