https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352350 A dealer running composite businesses under a common registration was not entitled to composition tax under Section 15 of the Karnataka VAT Act while continuing liquor sales in one unit. Rule 135(4) expressly excludes a dealer selling liquor from opting into the composition scheme, and turnover bifurcation between eligible and ineligible activities does not override that restriction. Section 38(6) shows that separate units may be treated independently only with the Commissioner's approval, so a dealer seeking composition for eligible businesses may need separate registrations. The Act and Rules were held consistent, and the denial of the composition benefit was upheld. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:27:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352350 A dealer running composite businesses under a common registration was not entitled to composition tax under Section 15 of the Karnataka VAT Act while continuing liquor sales in one unit. Rule 135(4) expressly excludes a dealer selling liquor from opting into the composition scheme, and turnover bifurcation between eligible and ineligible activities does not override that restriction. Section 38(6) shows that separate units may be treated independently only with the Commissioner's approval, so a dealer seeking composition for eligible businesses may need separate registrations. The Act and Rules were held consistent, and the denial of the composition benefit was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352350