<?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>1983 (1) TMI 218 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153461</link>
    <description>The Karnataka HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction against a sales tax assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the dispute concerned the treatment of turnover, deductions for export and inter-State sales, and whether goods were exported outside the State, all of which could be examined on facts and evidence in the statutory appeal. The Act provided an efficacious appellate and revisional hierarchy, including further appeal, second appeal to the Tribunal, and revision to the High Court. No inherent lack of jurisdiction in the assessing authority was shown, so Article 226 relief was refused and the jurisdictional objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:33:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 218 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153461</link>
      <description>The Karnataka HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction against a sales tax assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the dispute concerned the treatment of turnover, deductions for export and inter-State sales, and whether goods were exported outside the State, all of which could be examined on facts and evidence in the statutory appeal. The Act provided an efficacious appellate and revisional hierarchy, including further appeal, second appeal to the Tribunal, and revision to the High Court. No inherent lack of jurisdiction in the assessing authority was shown, so Article 226 relief was refused and the jurisdictional objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>