<?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>1990 (6) TMI 199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155971</link>
    <description>Natural justice was not breached where the assessee was informed that the assessment rested on market committee information, but never sought cross-examination of the officer before the assessing authority. The Court held that the right to cross-examine arises when specifically requested and refused; a mere denial of the material in reply is insufficient. On that basis, the assessing authority could proceed on the record before it, and the appellate authorities were not required to grant a fresh opportunity not sought at the original stage. The assessment and penalty were therefore upheld and the revision petition dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:13:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (6) TMI 199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155971</link>
      <description>Natural justice was not breached where the assessee was informed that the assessment rested on market committee information, but never sought cross-examination of the officer before the assessing authority. The Court held that the right to cross-examine arises when specifically requested and refused; a mere denial of the material in reply is insufficient. On that basis, the assessing authority could proceed on the record before it, and the appellate authorities were not required to grant a fresh opportunity not sought at the original stage. The assessment and penalty were therefore upheld and the revision petition dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>