<?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 (11) TMI 553 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400798</link>
    <description>A reassessment order could not stand where a material jurisdictional question affecting the levy, including tax on interstate stock transfers and local sales in other States, had not been examined; the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity. The subsidy component also required reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling on fertilizer subsidy taxability, and the assessing authority could not disregard that principle merely because the KVAT Act differed from the statutes previously considered. The levy was therefore not finally sustained and had to be re-examined on remand, including the effect of the statutory exclusion of subsidies in the valuation provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 553 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400798</link>
      <description>A reassessment order could not stand where a material jurisdictional question affecting the levy, including tax on interstate stock transfers and local sales in other States, had not been examined; the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity. The subsidy component also required reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling on fertilizer subsidy taxability, and the assessing authority could not disregard that principle merely because the KVAT Act differed from the statutes previously considered. The levy was therefore not finally sustained and had to be re-examined on remand, including the effect of the statutory exclusion of subsidies in the valuation provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>