<?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>2014 (9) TMI 141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251115</link>
    <description>Input tax credit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was denied for fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides and agricultural implements used in cultivating tea and coffee plants because cultivation was treated as agricultural or horticultural activity, not a business use of goods. The Act&#039;s business definition could not be stretched to cover agricultural inputs merely because the assessees also manufactured tea and coffee for sale, and the required nexus between the purchases and use in the course of business was absent. Cultivation and manufacture were treated as distinct stages, so the reassessment orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251115</link>
      <description>Input tax credit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was denied for fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides and agricultural implements used in cultivating tea and coffee plants because cultivation was treated as agricultural or horticultural activity, not a business use of goods. The Act&#039;s business definition could not be stretched to cover agricultural inputs merely because the assessees also manufactured tea and coffee for sale, and the required nexus between the purchases and use in the course of business was absent. Cultivation and manufacture were treated as distinct stages, so the reassessment orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>