<?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 (10) TMI 749 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333729</link>
    <description>Rule 130-A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was read broadly to cover inputs purchased for development, operation or maintenance of a processing area or SEZ unit, as well as inputs used in the unit&#039;s principal manufacturing or processing activities. The court noted that incidental purchases reasonably connected with the authorised activity, such as items needed for day-to-day functioning, may qualify for refund or input tax credit, subject to verification of actual use. The Tribunal&#039;s remand for factual verification of the claimed items was left undisturbed, and no substantial question of law was found for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 749 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333729</link>
      <description>Rule 130-A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was read broadly to cover inputs purchased for development, operation or maintenance of a processing area or SEZ unit, as well as inputs used in the unit&#039;s principal manufacturing or processing activities. The court noted that incidental purchases reasonably connected with the authorised activity, such as items needed for day-to-day functioning, may qualify for refund or input tax credit, subject to verification of actual use. The Tribunal&#039;s remand for factual verification of the claimed items was left undisturbed, and no substantial question of law was found for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>