<?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 (7) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329478</link>
    <description>Inclusion of tax in the maximum retail price and the declaration &quot;inclusive of all taxes&quot; on packaged goods did not, by itself, amount to collection of sales tax so as to forfeit exemption under the Karnataka Sales Tax exemption notification. The notification denied benefit only where tax was actually collected, and the statutory packaging requirement to show an MRP inclusive of taxes could not be treated as an admission of separate tax collection, particularly where invoices described the goods as fully exempt and the sale proceeds were not split between price and tax. Uniform pricing across exempt and non-exempt units was also insufficient to establish collection of tax. The exemption therefore remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329478</link>
      <description>Inclusion of tax in the maximum retail price and the declaration &quot;inclusive of all taxes&quot; on packaged goods did not, by itself, amount to collection of sales tax so as to forfeit exemption under the Karnataka Sales Tax exemption notification. The notification denied benefit only where tax was actually collected, and the statutory packaging requirement to show an MRP inclusive of taxes could not be treated as an admission of separate tax collection, particularly where invoices described the goods as fully exempt and the sale proceeds were not split between price and tax. Uniform pricing across exempt and non-exempt units was also insufficient to establish collection of tax. The exemption therefore remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>