<?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>2009 (11) TMI 848 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164590</link>
    <description>Garam masala, curry powder, sambar powder and rasam powder were held not to fall within Entry 89 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. The court reasoned that the entry referred to spices in all forms but did not expressly cover masala powders or mixed products containing more than one spice or spice with other material; the later legislative clarification in 2006 reinforced that omission. The products were treated as distinct commercial commodities and were therefore taxable under the residuary provision at 12.5 per cent. The appeal failed and the Advance Ruling Committee&#039;s order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 848 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164590</link>
      <description>Garam masala, curry powder, sambar powder and rasam powder were held not to fall within Entry 89 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. The court reasoned that the entry referred to spices in all forms but did not expressly cover masala powders or mixed products containing more than one spice or spice with other material; the later legislative clarification in 2006 reinforced that omission. The products were treated as distinct commercial commodities and were therefore taxable under the residuary provision at 12.5 per cent. The appeal failed and the Advance Ruling Committee&#039;s order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>