<?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>2013 (6) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183606</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 charges tax on a vehicle suitable for use on roads, while Section 4 allows payment on a quarterly, half-yearly or yearly basis. For an all-India tourist permit vehicle authorised to ply in Karnataka for one year, the Court held that the transport authority could require tax for the full authorisation period, since the authorization was expressly subject to payment of State tax or fees and the statutory scheme did not require daily monitoring of actual use. The demand was treated as co-terminus with the authorisation, and refund remained available under Section 7 if non-use was proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:44:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183606</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 charges tax on a vehicle suitable for use on roads, while Section 4 allows payment on a quarterly, half-yearly or yearly basis. For an all-India tourist permit vehicle authorised to ply in Karnataka for one year, the Court held that the transport authority could require tax for the full authorisation period, since the authorization was expressly subject to payment of State tax or fees and the statutory scheme did not require daily monitoring of actual use. The demand was treated as co-terminus with the authorisation, and refund remained available under Section 7 if non-use was proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>