<?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 (7) TMI 1076 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166507</link>
    <description>Transitional relief under section 18 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was available where vehicles were purchased, sales tax was paid on the purchase, and VAT was paid on the leasing transactions during the relevant period. On the undisputed documents and facts, the transaction fell within the transitional scheme covering tax paid under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on stock in hand relating to goods purchased on or after 1 April 2004 and used for manufacture or resale. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the benefit had been rightly granted was supported by cogent reasons and was not perverse or arbitrary, so interference in revision was unwarranted and the grant of relief was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1076 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166507</link>
      <description>Transitional relief under section 18 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was available where vehicles were purchased, sales tax was paid on the purchase, and VAT was paid on the leasing transactions during the relevant period. On the undisputed documents and facts, the transaction fell within the transitional scheme covering tax paid under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on stock in hand relating to goods purchased on or after 1 April 2004 and used for manufacture or resale. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the benefit had been rightly granted was supported by cogent reasons and was not perverse or arbitrary, so interference in revision was unwarranted and the grant of relief was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>