<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1252 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166369</link>
    <description>The sixth proviso to section 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies to branded-goods sales made exclusively to a marketing agent, distributor, wholesaler or other dealer by the brand owner or authorised user. &quot;Exclusively&quot; was construed to describe the mode of dealing with the goods, not to require that only one distributor exist in the State for the same product. On that interpretation, sales of RAJPHOS fell within the proviso even though another dealer also sold the product, so the petitioner&#039;s transactions remained within the statutory class covered and the challenge to the tax demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1252 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166369</link>
      <description>The sixth proviso to section 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies to branded-goods sales made exclusively to a marketing agent, distributor, wholesaler or other dealer by the brand owner or authorised user. &quot;Exclusively&quot; was construed to describe the mode of dealing with the goods, not to require that only one distributor exist in the State for the same product. On that interpretation, sales of RAJPHOS fell within the proviso even though another dealer also sold the product, so the petitioner&#039;s transactions remained within the statutory class covered and the challenge to the tax demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>