<?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 (4) TMI 893 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164779</link>
    <description>Separate procurement of printed materials from printers and later supply to customers, with distinct invoices and commercial consideration, was treated as a purchase followed by a sale rather than a mere service arrangement. On that factual basis, the activity was held liable to turnover tax because it involved transfer of property in goods through taxable trading transactions. The authorities also found that the petitioner was not only rendering advertising services but was carrying on business within the statutory definition of dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the concurrent factual findings were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 893 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164779</link>
      <description>Separate procurement of printed materials from printers and later supply to customers, with distinct invoices and commercial consideration, was treated as a purchase followed by a sale rather than a mere service arrangement. On that factual basis, the activity was held liable to turnover tax because it involved transfer of property in goods through taxable trading transactions. The authorities also found that the petitioner was not only rendering advertising services but was carrying on business within the statutory definition of dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the concurrent factual findings were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>