<?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>2015 (11) TMI 354 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267545</link>
    <description>The 2012 amendment to the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act expanded the definition of &quot;marriage hall&quot; to cover buildings, temporary structures and premises used for social or business functions, including exhibitions. On that reading, charges collected for use of exhibition halls at the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre were treated as consideration for luxury provided in a covered premises, making the charging provision for luxury tax applicable. The earlier Division Bench ruling in the petitioner&#039;s own matter was treated as displaced by the amended text, and the constitutional challenge failed. The assessment order and demand notice were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 354 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267545</link>
      <description>The 2012 amendment to the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act expanded the definition of &quot;marriage hall&quot; to cover buildings, temporary structures and premises used for social or business functions, including exhibitions. On that reading, charges collected for use of exhibition halls at the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre were treated as consideration for luxury provided in a covered premises, making the charging provision for luxury tax applicable. The earlier Division Bench ruling in the petitioner&#039;s own matter was treated as displaced by the amended text, and the constitutional challenge failed. The assessment order and demand notice were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>