<?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>2018 (3) TMI 1367 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357664</link>
    <description>Flex, vinyl printing, signboards and installation under the Karnataka VAT regime had to be examined to determine the correct schedule entry and tax rate. Sl. No. 8 of the Sixth Schedule covers printing and block making as distinct activities, while Sl. No. 23 applies to other works contracts, including composite contracts. Mere printing may fall within Sl. No. 8, but the installation component required a fresh examination to decide whether the transaction was a composite works contract under Sl. No. 23. The clarification was issued without adequate consideration of this distinction, so it was quashed and the matter was remanded for reconsideration; the assessment orders based on it were also set aside for redetermination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1367 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357664</link>
      <description>Flex, vinyl printing, signboards and installation under the Karnataka VAT regime had to be examined to determine the correct schedule entry and tax rate. Sl. No. 8 of the Sixth Schedule covers printing and block making as distinct activities, while Sl. No. 23 applies to other works contracts, including composite contracts. Mere printing may fall within Sl. No. 8, but the installation component required a fresh examination to decide whether the transaction was a composite works contract under Sl. No. 23. The clarification was issued without adequate consideration of this distinction, so it was quashed and the matter was remanded for reconsideration; the assessment orders based on it were also set aside for redetermination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>