<?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 (8) TMI 182 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153054</link>
    <description>Revisional interference was unjustified where the original assessment correctly granted exemption on rexine cloth turnover, so the exemption could not be disturbed. A seller claiming concessional rate on goods sold against the prescribed declaration satisfies the statutory condition by producing that declaration; the purchaser&#039;s later misuse does not retrospectively defeat the seller&#039;s entitlement. The proper remedy for such misuse lies against the purchaser under the penal provision, not by denying the seller the concession. The assessment revision was therefore quashed, and the assessee succeeded on both substantive grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:27:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (8) TMI 182 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153054</link>
      <description>Revisional interference was unjustified where the original assessment correctly granted exemption on rexine cloth turnover, so the exemption could not be disturbed. A seller claiming concessional rate on goods sold against the prescribed declaration satisfies the statutory condition by producing that declaration; the purchaser&#039;s later misuse does not retrospectively defeat the seller&#039;s entitlement. The proper remedy for such misuse lies against the purchaser under the penal provision, not by denying the seller the concession. The assessment revision was therefore quashed, and the assessee succeeded on both substantive grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>