https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359520 Writ jurisdiction remained available where the challenge went to the assessing authority's competence, so the alternative statutory remedy did not bar examination on merits. Goods moved from Maharashtra to Karnataka pursuant to a contract for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of elevators were treated as an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court emphasised that the decisive test was whether the sale occasioned movement between States, not where property passed or whether installation and commissioning occurred in Karnataka. Karnataka VAT could not be levied on such inter-State sales, and the reassessment could not survive to that extent. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359520 Writ jurisdiction remained available where the challenge went to the assessing authority's competence, so the alternative statutory remedy did not bar examination on merits. Goods moved from Maharashtra to Karnataka pursuant to a contract for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of elevators were treated as an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court emphasised that the decisive test was whether the sale occasioned movement between States, not where property passed or whether installation and commissioning occurred in Karnataka. Karnataka VAT could not be levied on such inter-State sales, and the reassessment could not survive to that extent. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359520