<?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>1982 (3) TMI 250 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154118</link>
    <description>Section 8A(3-A) applied only to a notification issued under section 8A(1)(a), and the earlier exemption notification on old gold and silver articles did not fall within that category. Because the statutory condition for retrospective cancellation was absent, the basis for reopening the assessment through rectification proceedings failed. The rectification notice was therefore not sustainable and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:00:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 250 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154118</link>
      <description>Section 8A(3-A) applied only to a notification issued under section 8A(1)(a), and the earlier exemption notification on old gold and silver articles did not fall within that category. Because the statutory condition for retrospective cancellation was absent, the basis for reopening the assessment through rectification proceedings failed. The rectification notice was therefore not sustainable and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>