<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1367 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283826</link>
    <description>An undefined entry for &quot;agricultural implements&quot; in a taxing statute must be interpreted in its common parlance sense. On that approach, a manually operated agricultural tree-climbing apparatus used by agriculturists for harvesting and spraying pesticides was treated as a tool employed in agriculture and held exempt under the relevant First Schedule entry and exemption provision. For the bipole version, the classification was not supported by adequate reasoning or examination on common parlance and trade parlance principles; the material on record was insufficient for final determination, so the classification was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing and additional evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:14:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1367 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283826</link>
      <description>An undefined entry for &quot;agricultural implements&quot; in a taxing statute must be interpreted in its common parlance sense. On that approach, a manually operated agricultural tree-climbing apparatus used by agriculturists for harvesting and spraying pesticides was treated as a tool employed in agriculture and held exempt under the relevant First Schedule entry and exemption provision. For the bipole version, the classification was not supported by adequate reasoning or examination on common parlance and trade parlance principles; the material on record was insufficient for final determination, so the classification was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing and additional evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>