<?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>2016 (2) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271301</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the Government Order dated 7.12.2011 and directing the State to issue appropriate exemption notifications under the KVAT Act. The court upheld the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ensuring that the State honored its commitments under the FWA. The court clarified the rights of affiliates and subcontractors, providing a clear directive for reassessment and statutory appeals where applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:09:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271301</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the Government Order dated 7.12.2011 and directing the State to issue appropriate exemption notifications under the KVAT Act. The court upheld the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ensuring that the State honored its commitments under the FWA. The court clarified the rights of affiliates and subcontractors, providing a clear directive for reassessment and statutory appeals where applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>