<?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>1974 (9) TMI 104 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151026</link>
    <description>A penalty order under section 12B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable because it imposed the maximum penalty without recording reasons. An adjudicatory order carrying civil consequences must disclose the basis of the decision so that it is open to judicial scrutiny. Here, the assessing officer merely confirmed the proposed levy without any reasoning, so the order was not a speaking order. The penalty order was therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 15:44:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 104 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151026</link>
      <description>A penalty order under section 12B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable because it imposed the maximum penalty without recording reasons. An adjudicatory order carrying civil consequences must disclose the basis of the decision so that it is open to judicial scrutiny. Here, the assessing officer merely confirmed the proposed levy without any reasoning, so the order was not a speaking order. The penalty order was therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>