<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1015 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337935</link>
    <description>Sales tax was held not leviable on brand franchise fees received from contract bottling units for beer manufacture because the arrangement did not amount to a transfer of the right to use the brand name or trade mark. The units manufactured under the assessee&#039;s specifications and control, without independent or unrestricted rights over the brand or effective commercial exploitation. The receipt was treated as consideration for services rather than a sale of goods, and simultaneous levy as both sale and service was excluded by the rule against double taxation. The tax, penalty and interest were therefore unsustainable, and the receipts were held outside the sales tax net.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1015 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337935</link>
      <description>Sales tax was held not leviable on brand franchise fees received from contract bottling units for beer manufacture because the arrangement did not amount to a transfer of the right to use the brand name or trade mark. The units manufactured under the assessee&#039;s specifications and control, without independent or unrestricted rights over the brand or effective commercial exploitation. The receipt was treated as consideration for services rather than a sale of goods, and simultaneous levy as both sale and service was excluded by the rule against double taxation. The tax, penalty and interest were therefore unsustainable, and the receipts were held outside the sales tax net.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>