<?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>1978 (7) TMI 226 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152134</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendments to the State sales tax law and section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act made the State levy on declared goods payable and limited reimbursement to cases where the statutory conditions were satisfied. The proviso to section 5(4) required payment of tax under the State Act and proof of a subsequent inter-State sale with Central sales tax payment before reimbursement could be claimed. On that basis, an assessee could not defeat rectification of an erroneous completed assessment by arguing that no Central sales tax liability arose, because the separate issue of Central sales tax liability did not bar the State authority from correcting the assessment and bringing the purchase turnover to tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:02:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 226 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152134</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendments to the State sales tax law and section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act made the State levy on declared goods payable and limited reimbursement to cases where the statutory conditions were satisfied. The proviso to section 5(4) required payment of tax under the State Act and proof of a subsequent inter-State sale with Central sales tax payment before reimbursement could be claimed. On that basis, an assessee could not defeat rectification of an erroneous completed assessment by arguing that no Central sales tax liability arose, because the separate issue of Central sales tax liability did not bar the State authority from correcting the assessment and bringing the purchase turnover to tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>