<?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>1980 (7) TMI 239 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152724</link>
    <description>A Magistrate acting under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could recover tax arrears as if they were a fine, and the recovery was not limited by the Magistrate&#039;s maximum fine power under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure for recovery remained attachment and sale under the criminal procedure provisions, so the objection based on the amount exceeding fine jurisdiction failed. However, a recovery application could not properly proceed without showing property within territorial jurisdiction; where the defaulter resided outside the magistrate&#039;s area and no attachable property was identified, the application was rightly declined. The petitioner was left free to file a fresh application before the competent Magistrate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 14:59:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (7) TMI 239 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152724</link>
      <description>A Magistrate acting under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could recover tax arrears as if they were a fine, and the recovery was not limited by the Magistrate&#039;s maximum fine power under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure for recovery remained attachment and sale under the criminal procedure provisions, so the objection based on the amount exceeding fine jurisdiction failed. However, a recovery application could not properly proceed without showing property within territorial jurisdiction; where the defaulter resided outside the magistrate&#039;s area and no attachable property was identified, the application was rightly declined. The petitioner was left free to file a fresh application before the competent Magistrate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>