https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271614 A declaratory ruling on the correct interpretation of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act applied to earlier reassessment orders as well as pending matters, so rectification was maintainable under section 69(1). The later Division Bench ruling held that where an assessee manufactures only taxable oil and exempt by-products arise incidentally, section 17 cannot be used to deny full input tax rebate. Because the reassessment orders had allowed only partial rebate on a view inconsistent with the later declared law, the petitioner was entitled to rectification and to full input tax rebate. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2016 01:10:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271614 A declaratory ruling on the correct interpretation of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act applied to earlier reassessment orders as well as pending matters, so rectification was maintainable under section 69(1). The later Division Bench ruling held that where an assessee manufactures only taxable oil and exempt by-products arise incidentally, section 17 cannot be used to deny full input tax rebate. Because the reassessment orders had allowed only partial rebate on a view inconsistent with the later declared law, the petitioner was entitled to rectification and to full input tax rebate. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271614