<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1108 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193065</link>
    <description>Karnataka HC held that products sold as G.K. Aerosol, Hit Aerosol, Hit Rat and Hit Line fell within Entry 23 of Schedule III of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act as insecticides or pesticides, taxable at 4%. Applying common parlance and statutory classification, the Court held that the exclusionary words in the entry, including &quot;and the like,&quot; could not be expanded beyond the items the Legislature expressly contemplated. It distinguished repellants and cleaning products from goods that actually kill insects or rodents, and found the disputed products to be insecticides and rodenticides, not repellants. The Tribunal&#039;s classification was upheld and the State&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:03:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1108 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193065</link>
      <description>Karnataka HC held that products sold as G.K. Aerosol, Hit Aerosol, Hit Rat and Hit Line fell within Entry 23 of Schedule III of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act as insecticides or pesticides, taxable at 4%. Applying common parlance and statutory classification, the Court held that the exclusionary words in the entry, including &quot;and the like,&quot; could not be expanded beyond the items the Legislature expressly contemplated. It distinguished repellants and cleaning products from goods that actually kill insects or rodents, and found the disputed products to be insecticides and rodenticides, not repellants. The Tribunal&#039;s classification was upheld and the State&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>