<?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>1986 (5) TMI 262 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155481</link>
    <description>Revisional power under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be used to displace a reasoned appellate order in a best judgment assessment merely because another view is possible. The Deputy Commissioner had examined the record, applied the correct legal principles, and granted relief after finding that the addition lacked reasons and was excessive on the facts. The Commissioner&#039;s revision proceeded on an erroneous reading of the Supreme Court decision in Esufali and did not show that the assessment order was legally or factually unsustainable. The revisional interference was therefore held unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s relief was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:54:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (5) TMI 262 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155481</link>
      <description>Revisional power under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be used to displace a reasoned appellate order in a best judgment assessment merely because another view is possible. The Deputy Commissioner had examined the record, applied the correct legal principles, and granted relief after finding that the addition lacked reasons and was excessive on the facts. The Commissioner&#039;s revision proceeded on an erroneous reading of the Supreme Court decision in Esufali and did not show that the assessment order was legally or factually unsustainable. The revisional interference was therefore held unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s relief was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>