<?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>2012 (7) TMI 856 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167700</link>
    <description>Screen printing designs on customer-supplied glazed tiles was treated as processing work, not a sale of goods, because the ink, stains, colours, glaze, vitrosa and packing materials were used only as consumables in execution of the work. On that basis, sale turnover provisions were not attracted. The article also notes that any transfer of property, if assumed, would in substance relate to inter-State supplies to customers outside Karnataka and would not support levy under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in the manner attempted. Section 17(7) was held inapplicable because the assessee was not purchasing goods for use in a works contract, and the deletion of the tax demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 856 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167700</link>
      <description>Screen printing designs on customer-supplied glazed tiles was treated as processing work, not a sale of goods, because the ink, stains, colours, glaze, vitrosa and packing materials were used only as consumables in execution of the work. On that basis, sale turnover provisions were not attracted. The article also notes that any transfer of property, if assumed, would in substance relate to inter-State supplies to customers outside Karnataka and would not support levy under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in the manner attempted. Section 17(7) was held inapplicable because the assessee was not purchasing goods for use in a works contract, and the deletion of the tax demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>