<?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 (9) TMI 909 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167917</link>
    <description>The court upheld the imposition of tax at three per cent based on the total turnover for the year, clarified the interpretation of turnover tax liability under section 6B, and determined that the notification reducing tax to one per cent should not be applied retrospectively. The appellant&#039;s challenge was dismissed, and the court affirmed the tax authorities&#039; decision as legally sound.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 909 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167917</link>
      <description>The court upheld the imposition of tax at three per cent based on the total turnover for the year, clarified the interpretation of turnover tax liability under section 6B, and determined that the notification reducing tax to one per cent should not be applied retrospectively. The appellant&#039;s challenge was dismissed, and the court affirmed the tax authorities&#039; decision as legally sound.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>