<?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>1988 (8) TMI 405 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155884</link>
    <description>Revisional power under section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is attracted when an assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. An assessment made by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under the jurisdictional allocation in section 3-B is without jurisdiction, and that defect goes to the root of the assessment. Such an order is liable to correction in revision, and the possibility that the assessee may later challenge the assessment or seek refund is sufficient prejudice to sustain revisional action. The revisional order setting aside the defective assessment and remitting the matter for fresh assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 405 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155884</link>
      <description>Revisional power under section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is attracted when an assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. An assessment made by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under the jurisdictional allocation in section 3-B is without jurisdiction, and that defect goes to the root of the assessment. Such an order is liable to correction in revision, and the possibility that the assessee may later challenge the assessment or seek refund is sufficient prejudice to sustain revisional action. The revisional order setting aside the defective assessment and remitting the matter for fresh assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>