<?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>2020 (5) TMI 241 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395208</link>
    <description>The amended Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959 was analysed as imposing tax on consumption of electricity, not on generation. The challenge that levy on captive and auxiliary consumption by non-licensees exceeded State legislative competence was rejected because the taxable event remained consumption, and the fact that the generator was also the payer did not change the character of the levy. On that footing, the amended Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4(3) were treated as intra vires. The rate-fixing notification for captive and auxiliary consumption, and the consequential demand notices, were upheld as consistent with the valid levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 08:56:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 241 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395208</link>
      <description>The amended Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959 was analysed as imposing tax on consumption of electricity, not on generation. The challenge that levy on captive and auxiliary consumption by non-licensees exceeded State legislative competence was rejected because the taxable event remained consumption, and the fact that the generator was also the payer did not change the character of the levy. On that footing, the amended Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4(3) were treated as intra vires. The rate-fixing notification for captive and auxiliary consumption, and the consequential demand notices, were upheld as consistent with the valid levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>