<?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>2007 (3) TMI 733 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172779</link>
    <description>Movement of goods from Bangalore to Delhi under a subcontract was treated as arising from the principal contract, because the two contracts were inseparable and the movement was an incident of the contractual obligation rather than an independent local sale. On that basis, the transaction was regarded as an inter-State sale taxable in Karnataka, and the tax paid under the Delhi sales tax regime was held refundable as a consequential relief against the same turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:59:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 733 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172779</link>
      <description>Movement of goods from Bangalore to Delhi under a subcontract was treated as arising from the principal contract, because the two contracts were inseparable and the movement was an incident of the contractual obligation rather than an independent local sale. On that basis, the transaction was regarded as an inter-State sale taxable in Karnataka, and the tax paid under the Delhi sales tax regime was held refundable as a consequential relief against the same turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>