<?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>1993 (8) TMI 270 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157549</link>
    <description>Section 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act confers wide revisional power to test the legality, propriety and regularity of assessment orders, and that power is not curtailed by the separate escaped-turnover mechanism under section 12-A because the provisions operate in different fields. Where the record shows incomplete enquiry, failure to probe a relevant claim, or objective discrepancies in declarations and purchase figures, the revisional authority may direct further enquiry and remand the matter. The assessee continued to bear the burden of proving exemption or second-dealer status under section 6-A, and form 32 was not indispensable if other satisfactory evidence was produced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 270 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157549</link>
      <description>Section 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act confers wide revisional power to test the legality, propriety and regularity of assessment orders, and that power is not curtailed by the separate escaped-turnover mechanism under section 12-A because the provisions operate in different fields. Where the record shows incomplete enquiry, failure to probe a relevant claim, or objective discrepancies in declarations and purchase figures, the revisional authority may direct further enquiry and remand the matter. The assessee continued to bear the burden of proving exemption or second-dealer status under section 6-A, and form 32 was not indispensable if other satisfactory evidence was produced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>