<?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 (12) TMI 946 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402147</link>
    <description>Structural glazing and allied fac ade works were examined for classification under the Karnataka VAT Schedule, which distinguishes fabrication and erection of structural works from other works contracts. The High Court&#039;s earlier guidance was that structural glazing can fall within structural works only when it serves as a substitute for an external wall, while ACP or glass cladding used mainly for aesthetics does not. On remand, the Tribunal found that the contracts were composite works dominated by glazing, curtain walling, cladding, windows, ventilators and related fac ade work, with only a small part involving MS structure fabrication and erection. That factual classification was upheld as neither perverse nor contrary to the earlier directions, and the works remained classifiable under Entry 23.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 946 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402147</link>
      <description>Structural glazing and allied fac ade works were examined for classification under the Karnataka VAT Schedule, which distinguishes fabrication and erection of structural works from other works contracts. The High Court&#039;s earlier guidance was that structural glazing can fall within structural works only when it serves as a substitute for an external wall, while ACP or glass cladding used mainly for aesthetics does not. On remand, the Tribunal found that the contracts were composite works dominated by glazing, curtain walling, cladding, windows, ventilators and related fac ade work, with only a small part involving MS structure fabrication and erection. That factual classification was upheld as neither perverse nor contrary to the earlier directions, and the works remained classifiable under Entry 23.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>